Posted on 07/20/2005 7:33:31 AM PDT by Babu
After pretending to consider various women and minorities for the Supreme Court these past few weeks, President Bush decided to disappoint all the groups he had just ginned up and nominate a white male.
So all we know about him for sure is that he can't dance and he probably doesn't know who Jay-Z is. Other than that, he is a blank slate. Tabula rasa. Big zippo. Nada. Oh, yeah...we also know he's argued cases before the supreme court. big deal; so has Larry fFynt's attorney.
But unfortunately, other than that that, we don’t know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever.
Since the announcement, court-watchers have been like the old Kremlinologists from Soviet days looking for clues as to what kind of justice Roberts will be. Will he let us vote?
Does he live in a small, rough-hewn cabin in the woods of New Hampshire and avoid "women folk"?
Does he trust democracy? Or will he make all the important decisions for us and call them “constitutional rights.”
It means absolutely nothing that NARAL and Planned Parenthood attack him: They also attacked Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Hackett Souter.
The only way a supreme court nominee could win the approval of NARAL and Planned Parenthood would be to actually perform an abortion during his confirmation hearing, live, on camera, and preferably a partial birth one.
It means nothing that Roberts wrote briefs arguing for the repeal of Roe v. Wade when he worked for Republican administrations. He was arguing on behalf of his client, the United States of America. Roberts has specifically disassociated himself from those cases, dropping a footnote to a 1994 law review article that said:
“In the interest of full disclosure, the author would like to point out that as Deputy Solicitor General for a portion of the 1992-93 Term, he was involved in many of the cases discussed below. In the interest of even fuller disclosure, he would also like to point out that his views as a commentator on those cases do not necessarily reflect his views as an advocate for his former client, the United States.”
This would have been the legal equivalent, after O.J.'s acquittal, of Johnnie Cochran saying, "hey, I never said the guy was innocent. I was just doing my job."
And it makes no difference that conservatives in the White House are assuring us Roberts can be trusted. We got the exact same assurances from officials working for the last president Bush about David Hackett Souter.
I believe their exact words were, "Read our lips; Souter's a reliable conservative."
From the theater of the absurd category, the Republican National Committee’s “talking points” on Roberts provide this little tidbit:
“In the 1995 case of Barry v. Little, Judge Roberts argued—free of charge—before the D.C. Court of Appeals on behalf of a class of the neediest welfare recipients, challenging a termination of benefits under the District’s Public Assistance Act of 1982.”
I'm glad to hear the man has a steady work record, but how did this make it to the top of his resume?
Bill Clinton goes around bragging that he passed welfare reform, which was, admittedly, the one public policy success of his entire administration (passed by the Republican Congress). But now apparently Republicans want to pretend the Party of welfare queens! Soon the RNC will be boasting that Republicans want to raise your taxes and surrender in the war on terrorism too.
Finally, lets ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That’s just unnatural.
By contrast, I held out for three months, tops, before dropping my first rhetorical bombshell, which I think was about Goldwater.
It’s especially unnatural for someone who is smart and there’s no question but that Roberts is smart.
If a smart and accomplished person goes this long without expressing an opinion, they'd better be pursuing the Miss America title.
Apparently, Roberts decided early on that he wanted to be on the Supreme Court and that the way to do that was not to express a personal opinion on anything to anybody ever. It’s as if he is from some space alien sleeper cell. Maybe the space aliens are trying to help us, but I wish we knew that.
If the Senate were in Democrat hands, Roberts would be perfect. But why on earth would Bush waste a nomination on a person who is a complete blank slate when we have a majority in the Senate!
We also have a majority in the House, state legislatures, state governorships, and have won five of the last seven presidential elections — seven of the last ten!
We're the Harlem Globetrotters now - why do we have to play the Washington Generals every week?
Conservatism is sweeping the nation, we have a fully functioning alternative media, we’re ticked off and ready to avenge Robert Bork . . . and Bush nominates a Rorschach blot.
Even as they are losing voters, Democrats don’t hesitate to nominate reliable left-wing lunatics like Ruth Bader Ginsberg to lifetime sinecures on the High Court. And the vast majority of Americans loathe her views.
As I’ve said before, if a majority of Americans agreed with liberals on abortion, gay marriage, pornography, criminals’ rights, and property rights –liberals wouldn’t need the Supreme Court to give them everything they want through invented “constitutional” rights invisible to everyone but People For the American Way. It’s always good to remind voters that Democrats are the party of abortion, sodomy, and atheism and nothing presents an opportunity to do so like a Supreme Court nomination.
During the “filibuster” fracas, one lonely voice in the woods admonished Republicans: “Of your six minutes on TV, use 30 seconds to point out the Democrats are abusing the filibuster and the other 5 1/2 minutes to ask liberals to explain why they think Bush's judicial nominees are ‘extreme.’" Republicans ignored this advice, spent the next several weeks arguing about the history of the filibuster, and lost the fight.
Now we come to find out from last Sunday’s New York Times — the enemy’s own playbook! — that the Democrats actually took polls and determined that they could not defeat Bush’s conservative judicial nominees on ideological grounds. They could win majority support only if they argued turgid procedural points.
That’s why the entire nation had to be bored to death with arguments about the filibuster earlier this year.
The Democrats’ own polls showed voters are no longer fooled by claims that the Democrats are trying to block “judges who would roll back civil rights.” Borking is over.
And Bush responds by nominating a candidate who will allow Democrats to avoid fighting on their weakest ground – substance. He has given us a Supreme Court nomination that will placate no liberals and should please no conservatives.
Maybe Roberts will contravene the sordid history of “stealth nominees” and be the Scalia or Thomas Bush promised us when he was asking for our votes. Or maybe he won’t. The Supreme Court shouldn't be a game of Russian roulette.
He is a member of the Federalist society. This guy is nothing like Souter, which everyone knew was a liberal underneath.
Coulter would say, for whom was he working. That will be the "we" to whom he refers. The "we" does not necessarily mean "I."
Guess it's time to ban Ann Coulter like eveyone else who doesn't consume adequate quantities of the artificially flavored fruit drink.
Unbelieveable!
Ann Coulter is saying a lot along the same theme that I said on thread that got pulled, only because the title included the words "Bush Basher".
Maybe Ann saw that thread and got some ideas for her column.
There were some great points made by both sides in that thread, and it was very civil. Too bad the thread was pulled--especially since Ann Coulter (FR's darling) is saying the same thing as some of us said.
As a side note, if that thread did not have the words "Bush Basher" in the title, the thread never would have been pulled since their was some great civil discussion there. (99% of so-called "bashers" are just like Ann Coulter--we have an alternative opinion).
Anyway, I agree with Ann Coulter. The stage was set perfectly for a Jones, Brown or Luttig to be nominated, but Roberts was and could well end up as another Souter.
My suggestion: Never allow any thread to have the title "Bush Basher" in it. That way, members and admin will look at the content of the thread, not its title. After all, Ann Coulter is NOT a "Bush Basher".
She's a lightweight in every sense except her bank account. Her commercial success from selling strident books and views is hugh, but as a legal commentator she isn't series.
As I read the article, I wondered the same thing.
Agreed. In fact, his comments in Rancho Viejo v. Norton are rather disturbing. He dissented from the decision not because he thought the Endangered Species act was unconstitutional but only because they were basing it's constitutionality on the commerce clause. He wanted them to base it on other grounds. Ms. Coulter isn't saying this guy is conservative. She is saying that, in a sense, this was a "safe" choice because the guy has rather deliberately attempted to keep himself a blank slate for this purpose. He is not a Judge Alito or Judge Edith Jones, both of whom have, in speeches, rather strongly espoused originalism in the interpretation of the Constitution. Judge Roberts, to my knowledge, has not. And the assurance of conservative groups and the President just aren't reliable enough to base the nomination of a life-time appointment. It has since been discovered that Souter was downright deceptive in his White House dealings with President George H.W. Busy, protraying himself as solidly conservative. The fact that Judge Roberts has been so very careful not to forthrightly espouse originalism, and in fact, takes great care to distance himself from any controversy, does and should raise some red flags. But the nomination is made and we'll now have to see if we're stuck with an activist. If not, great. If so, it could be a very long and damaging 30 year wait to replace him.
This is true. It was a tactical error on the part of Republicans, and a predictable one given the character of the leaders of our party. Republicans are much more secure in arguing about procedure, decorum and tradition than they are ideology. Most voters don't know what a filibuster even is, much less why they should be concerned about the breach of a hoary old Senate tradition that 95% of voters could not care less about.
On the other hand, it probably makes sense to most voters that Senators would ask a judge about his beliefs, since they are public officials. I realize this breaks the rules of the legal profession, but most people just consider that "lawyer talk" and ignore it. That's why Democrats haven't paid a price for applying an "ideological litmus test." They have failed in trying to prove to America that Bush's nominees are wild-eyed fanatics.
Another Souter on the court would be a disaster...why doesn't the president force the RATS hand and nominate Kenneth Starr?
Is it just me, or does that guy on the left look like Peter Lawford?
That what I have been hoping.
...still lot to learn though.
Could it be reverse psychology. If the libs think the conservative right hates the guy, then the libs have to support him out of spite.
Interesting. This is going to send NARAL and the left into a tizzy...
I think there is a tendency for republican presidents to throw a crumb to the other side. Meaning that, we got this judge through confirmations, the next time we'll give you one you like.
She want's to keep the heat on the President in this regard.
I think Robert's or Luttig are good choices. I don't think we did our homework on Kennedy, Souter etc. At first these judges gave conservative opinions.
There must be some reason as to why he is well liked by so many. I think he will be a strict conservative on the bench without legislating.
In short, I understand what Ann is doing here...but I think she is wrong.
nick
His wife is the former VP of Feminists for Life. Think of that as a stealth insurance plan. If he rules wrong on abortion -- it's the couch or even divorce....
Ditto that!
Ann sounds like she thought she had a shot at the nomination!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.