SOUTER IN ROBERTS CLOTHING, ANN COULTER

Ann Coulter.com ^ | 7-30-05 | Ann Coulter

[canadiancapitalist]

I despise identity politics, but the chances of getting two white males confirmed back to back is not good. I'd rather see Jones or Brown.

[inquest]

Thanks for the information. I'd have to know a little more about the case before I can make a really solid judgment. If the search actually had turned up contraband, then the person to whom it pertained is just as guilty as he would be if the officer had jumped through all the necessary legal hoops for conducting the search. It doesn't sit well with me at all that proven criminals can reap some kind of windfall just because the officers screwed up.

But if, on the other hand, the search had turned up nothing, and the officer was being sued for an illegal search, then Roberts' ruling was totally inappropriate, and should be grounds for an immediate rejection by the Senate.

[nikos1121]

Yes, she's good too.

[nikos1121]

He will have to appoint a woman

[mysterio]

To me, the guilt or innocence of the suspect has nothing to do with the Constitutionality of the search. I mean, is it ok to put video cameras in your house to watch your every move with no warrant if it turns out that you happen to commit a crime?

[MarcusTulliusCicero]

Yes, my speculation was that, since he picked a man to replace Roberts, he will either nominate a woman to replace Scalia (should he move to Chief), or just appoint a woman as Chief Justice.

[nikos1121]

Ruth Ginzberg?

[inquest]

To me, the guilt or innocence of the suspect has nothing to do with the Constitutionality of the search.

But at the same time, the constitutionality of the search has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. If you're guilty, you're guilty, regardless of whatever transgressions the authorities might have committed. Sure, punish them for it if they cross the line, but don't turn a criminal loose because of it.

[The_Eaglet]

His "settled law" comment just smells.

Agreed. We don't need any more justices who equate Court decisions with legislation when Congress, not the Courts, have "all legislative powers" in the federal government (USC A1S1).

[mysterio]

The Constitution is not designed to protect us from criminals. It is designed to protect us from tyranny. Better that a few criminals escape justice than for all of us to live under the tyranny of a criminal government. So many have lost sight of that.

[inquest]

But letting criminals get a benefit from the authorities' indiscretion does little to protect innocent people from abuses of power. The consequences of illegal searches and seizures should fall directly on those who commit them. There's no need to punish society by releasing criminals in retaliation for such actions.

[proud American in Canada]

One thing about someone who has lived in the DC area for a number of years and is still conservative, they have shown the ability to be a conservative in the culture of DC. As Justice O'Connor whining about Roberts not being a woman today reminds us, that is not easy for many conservative newcomers to the inside the beltway culture

You made some excellent points in your post.

[Always Right]

His "settled law" comment just smells.
Agreed. We don't need any more justices who equate Court decisions with legislation when Congress

It would seem disturbing, but I believed Roberts prefixed that answer with as an appellate court judge. In that position he has no authority to ignore Supreme Court descions, so it is technically the correct answer. If he answered otherwised, he would have been nuked by the Senate Democrats.

[lepton]

I heard about how Coulter appears to hate this appointment, and thinks Roberts ill-suited. Now I've read the article and it seems clear to me is that she said "I don't know" at length and with vigor.

Not a problem. We should know more about Roberts, but this is hardly an indictment of him.

[lepton]

F. Lee Levin has given his stamp of approval and that is better than Coulter's non-endorsement here. Sorry Ann, I believe you be proven wrong.

Wrong? How can she be proven wrong? Basically all she says - admittedly, at length - is that she doesn't know. I think we can give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that she actually doesn't feel she knows enough about Roberts to personally endorse him. And...?

[lepton]

Damn girl, you gotta eat if we can see your tracheal rings

...And the knobs at her elbows.

[lepton]

You are correct. IMHO given the choice of Coulter who looks for facetime or Levin -- I will take the opinions of Levin every time. He is much more grounded and not as flippant but then he doesn't have long blonde hair either! :)

Are they really in opposition? All Coulter really says here is "I don't know." This is hardly a smashing denouncement of Roberts.

[MarcusTulliusCicero]

No, he'll appoint someone (Rogers-Brown or Hollans Jones?) from outside the Court for CJ, or Associate Justice to replace Scalia or Thomas if the get tapped for CJ.

[lepton]

I mean she's not arguing against Roberts personally. She doesn't say he's scum or some liberal that shouldn't ever be nominated.

yup.

[bannie]

We may not know if he lives in a log cabin, but you can bet that Bush knows.

This is what we hired him to do. I don't always agree with Bush; but I know that he's done a better job in this selection that Kerry would have done.