SOUTER IN ROBERTS CLOTHING, ANN COULTER

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.

Justice Souter did not have those conservative credentials. Rather, the Washington establishment relied heavily on John Sunnu's assertion that Souter was one of us.

Actually liberal pro-abortion GOP Senator Warren Rudman deserves most 'credit'. He was a very close friend of Souter and lied to Bush I about who Souter was, and told liberal Democrats the truth about Souter. Rudman was also the architect of the McCain destruction attacking Christian Conservatives in the Primaries. Possibly the biggest back stabbing RINO in history.

That's comforting. So is the fact that he worked for Ronald Reagan, God bless him.

I hope this turns out right for us and America. We couldn't survive another Souter, Kennedy or Scalia.

The guy looked good to me.

I guess Ann is justifiably upset as she would have someone with clearer conservative credentials and more solid track record. Maybe Bush is waiting for that candidate when Rendquist retires - which I hope to God he does before Bush is out of office.

I alos hope Bush moves Scalia or Thomas into the Chief Justice slot.

Is there any advantage to being Chief Justice, or is that just an honorary title?

But I take comfort in the fact that Levine, Ingraham, Redstate.org, Ramesh Ponnuru, Rich Lowry, J K Lopez, and the rest of the NRO gang are happy

Not to mention James Dobson, Gary Bauer, Edwin Meese, Jay Sekulow, Tony Perkins, and Louis Sheldon.

So if she did her homework what does she base her opinions on. There is nothing in this mans background that would indicate he is anything but a Rehnquist clone.

FYI - He does not avoid "women folk"...

The wife and two kids were at the announcement last night...

I usually like Annie C. but this time I think she is wrong...

Now that you mention it....Rudman was heavily involved.

The point of my posting is that you can tell a lot about a person by the company he keeps.

Judge Roberts has solid conservative credentials as evidenced by both his tenure in the Reagan Administration and his clerkship with Rehnquist. Moreover, he is known within Federalist Society circles.

Souter never had such ties...and did not run in those social circles. In fact, Souter never ran in any social circle of which I am aware.

Agreed. If they named a radioactive candidate and the RATs went nuclear, then they could get it in the open, invoke rule changes and shove it down the RAT's throats. I don't care a RAT's @ss about getting along with treasonous swine who are desperate to kill this nation. My life, my family's future and that of you and yours is riding on these judges and it is NO time to play politics or be 'understanding.'

I hope I am entire unfounded in my suspicions and end up looking like the fool. No sweat in being wrong if you're safe. Far worse to be right and end up in hell.

167 posted on 07/20/2005 8:05:31 AM PDT by WorkingClassFilth (NEW and IMPROVED: Now with 100% more Tyrannical Tendencies and Dictator Envy!)

This guy is nothing like Souter, which everyone knew was a liberal underneath.

Not everyone thought Souter was a liberal at the time of his nomination in 1990. Jesse Helms voted for his confirmation. John Sununu and GHWB swore to his conservatism. But Warren Rudman and Joe Biden knew the truth about Souter from the beginning!

..hold on folks...

Ms. Coulter has everyone's safety in mind here.

She simply doesn't want anyone to slip and fall on the drool that is coming from some Republicans over this nominee.

Justice Roberts may prove to be the greatest jurist in American history, but a little revolution is good sometimes -- even if it's only a word of caution from our beloved Ann.

"but Levin has something else that's long that AC doesn't have! "

Are you really sure about that?

Well....there is no "Rudman" here in this case. Roberts has been a friend to the Federalist Society -- of which I am a member.

This guy was not on any of the conservatives "dream list". No one talked about him and hoped he would be the candidate.

He's been on every list I've seen going back several months. Many conservatives were expecting him to be the pick for Rehnquist's replacement.

I factored that in. I was not going by what he said but his demeanor. But he is a useful and willing tool of the Democrat establishment, and obviously he has made committments to make TV appearances commenting on the nominee. In other words, he signed up for the fight, and he is picking his battles and he gave me the impression, he ain't picking this battle but the next one.

Is there any advantage to being Chief Justice, or is that just an honorary title?

I believe it is just an honorary title. Maybe it gets you a free sandwich at the commissary on Fridays?

Souter was not a member of the Federalist Society; he did not work under Reagan and Ken Starr in the Solicitor General's Office; he lived with his Mama; he did not have a wife active in the pro-life movement; and was not a traditional conservative Catholic. Furthermore, Souter was pushed by Warren Rudman (a RINO big time).

Stop your ridiculous hyperventilating.

(Bush has privately interviewed the guy and trusts him.)

He also looked into the eyes of Putin and trusted him. It is arrogant of a person to think that they know what's in a person's soul. I prefer hard evidence that is ample in judger Brown's case. Why didn't Bush nominate her? She would have destroyed what remains of the Democrat party. I don't see much hard evidence in this case.

I disagree with the agreeable Ann Coulter. I remember Souter confirmation. I remember being nervous about Souter. We were asked by the socially liberal Republican, Warren Rudman, to trust him. Sceptics abounded, but many clammed up and let it fly. Our conservative instincts were dead on, Souter is a disaster.

On the other hand, Bush 43 has NEVER let us down. I trust this guy way more than his father. I am delighted with this pick.

I understand Ann's point, which I think mostly is that she wanted Bush to pick an "in-your-face" type of nominee, but my instincts, along with my complete trust in Bush 43, leads to my confidence that Roberts will turn out to be a great, Scalia/Thomas type pick.

I bet I'm right.

Why Hillary not prosecuted for just the misdeamenors she committed?

IIRC the excuse given was that prosecutors didn't think they could get a jury to convict her, no matter what the evidence.

When you have juries who routinely ignore even the strongest evidence, and refuse to convict a celebrity (or a Dem), it can do more harm than good to prosecute, I guess.

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.