Skip to comments.SOUTER IN ROBERTS CLOTHING, ANN COULTER
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 dont 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 OConnor, 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 Committees talking points on Roberts provide this little tidbit:
In the 1995 case of Barry v. Little, Judge Roberts arguedfree of chargebefore the D.C. Court of Appeals on behalf of a class of the neediest welfare recipients, challenging a termination of benefits under the Districts 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. Thats just unnatural.
By contrast, I held out for three months, tops, before dropping my first rhetorical bombshell, which I think was about Goldwater.
Its especially unnatural for someone who is smart and theres 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. Its 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, were ticked off and ready to avenge Robert Bork . . . and Bush nominates a Rorschach blot.
Even as they are losing voters, Democrats dont 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 Ive said before, if a majority of Americans agreed with liberals on abortion, gay marriage, pornography, criminals rights, and property rights liberals wouldnt need the Supreme Court to give them everything they want through invented constitutional rights invisible to everyone but People For the American Way. Its 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 Sundays New York Times the enemys own playbook! that the Democrats actually took polls and determined that they could not defeat Bushs conservative judicial nominees on ideological grounds. They could win majority support only if they argued turgid procedural points.
Thats 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 wont. The Supreme Court shouldn't be a game of Russian roulette.
I, too, am worried about the blank slate.
His wife is telling --- active in prolife.
He also was known and liked, personally, to several of the NRO people. This is very reassuring.
An actual catholic, not a CINO, apparently --- also good for these purposes. (Adopted two kids; probably could have had kids via IVF.)
Holy Crow! She DOES have an Adam's Apple!
(actually, I think it's just a tracheal ring. Damn girl, you gotta eat if we can see your tracheal rings!)
Lawyers take all sorts of positions they may not agree with; means little.
Souter wasn't married to a pro-life advocate.
Life and certainty dont mix
Ann always has something interesting to say.
I thought that there were some posts yesterday saying that Ann Coulter was behind him.
Ditto to Ann - the media and hollywood did everything in their powers to get Kerry elected and failed - why do we continue to kiss the libs ass???? Abortion of live babies is not mainstream, racism in hiring and education is not mainstream, homosexual marriage is not mainstream - Bush should have picked someone who is on the record for strict constitutional interpretation and individual rights. I think conservatives probably got screwed again - time will tell.
I will wait and see before I condemn, but I've seen more than one 'R' nomination go over to the dark side. Funny how the RAT nominations to the SCOTUS seem to keep advancing their agenda...
Amen! But remember, Catholics Need not Apply to the Supreme Court as per the DNC.
Ann has a point and I trust both Ann and President Bush. I think however that Bush has a strategy behind all of this. Putting Roberts on the bench should please most conservative for now but we are still waiting to see what is in the cards for Rehnquist. If we push someone too conservative right now it will just be a big argument by both sides. Putting someone to the slight right on the bench can possibly allow us to push someone more conservative when Rehnquist gives up the bench. I don't think that will be long. We shall see. Bush knows what he is doing. I trust this move. I trust Roberts will serve the bench well.
Okay....did he or didn't he argue pro-bono against welfare time limits?
I love reading Ann's articles, but let's face it. Ann would complain the appointment of Jerry Falwell as being to liberal.
Um... I seem to remember one such stealth nominee, named Clarence Thomas. Roberts' record is much less stealthy than Thomas'. What she is really insisting is that we can't tell Roberts' opinions from GHW Bush's. But he went out of his way to argue against Stare Decisis, exceeding even what his boss, Ken Starr, argued.
I have to agree with AC.
Roberts has only served two years on the bench.
There were better jurists with a lot more experience and a conservative track record on the bench than Roberts that W could have chosen.
All we can do is hope & pray for is that Roberts turns out to be a Scalia and not another Souter!
Maybe Ann is just trying to make his confirmation easier by tricking the rats with this article.
Ann, sorry babe...like I told you last night when we were talking...I think you're wrong on this one.