Posted on 07/20/2005 7:33:31 AM PDT by Babu
No, you are wrong on that one. Scalia was a known originalist and sailed through because he was brilliant and the administration handled the nomination really well.
And in a few years, I expect she will have the class to write a column in which she admits she was wrong about him.
I've discussed this more in one radio interview this morning. I have two more radio interviews on this, and an article to write and publish on the same subject. Stay tuned.
Congressman Billybob
As I recall, there was ONE person whose word GWHB and others like Helms were taking their key from : Sununu.
With Roberts, it is clear there are many vouching for his Constitutional credentials. I don't believe that there is a valid comparison, and also trust Ann will change her opinion about him in time.
I don't think the choice of Roberts is anything at all like a crap shoot.
We end how? The only grounds for impeachment are not being in "good behavior". We had a Senate that couldn't impeach a President for committing a felony in office. We have a Senate who didn't have the spine to deny Arlen Specter the Judiciary chairmanship. Do you think there would be any hope of removing Roberts because he "pulls a Souter"? This is why the NOMINATION process is important. Once confirmed he's in regardless of whether he turns out to be a closet activist. Done deal, at least in this universe.
Absolutely ...... NOT NOW!
The Iron is all upstairs be careful not to fall over.
from Redstate.org
http://www.redstate.org/print/2005/7/19/22562/5025
One Pro-Lifer's View
By: Augustine · Section: SCOTUS
there are two things that should encourage all of those who care about the life issue:
1. The close of Roberts remarks this evening - where he said: "I also want to acknowledge my children, my daughter, Josie, my son, Jack, who remind me every day why it's so important for us to work to preserve the institutions of our democracy" - becomes more meaningful when you realize that his children are adopted. This is not a typical thing for a nominee to say, and I do not believe this line was an accident.
2. Roberts is married to the former Executive Vice President of Feminists for Life. This matters, and it cannot be underestimated. Look at Ginny Thomas and Maureen Scalia - one does not sleep in the same bed as someone who has dedicated themselves to this cause without ramifications. The strong opinions of the New York Times will not beat out the strong opinions of a dedicated spouse.
I have an idea, why don't we actually watch the nomination hearings and see how this guy turns out.
She needs way too much attention.......... and a lot of food!
The fact that Roberts has not spent most of his life as a judge ought to be a point in his favor. Maybe next time Bush will go even further out on a limb and nominate a Supreme Court justice who isn't even a lawyer.
This country has already been influenced way too much by a bunch of mediocre, limp-wristed career jurists who have no idea what it takes to earn a real living.
It would be refreshing to see a rancher or a truck driver on the U.S. Supreme Court. You can be sure there won't be too many "penumbras" in his opinions, and to someone like that the U.S. Constitution will mean exactly what it says.
His entire career is working for conservatives fighting the most conservative cases. Any lawyer desiring to become a judge would be stupid not to put a disclaimer on every case they work on, otherwise it would be fuel for the enemy. I can understand having some doubts, but I am not in the doubter camp on this one. The names floated yesterday, I was, but not Roberts. It was a pleasant surprise.
Her own "nominee" proves that she is not serious about this matter.
The point is there is nothing in post 86 that proves he is a rock solid conservative, so we don't know. Why not appoint a sure thing, like Luttig. I like to think he is, but all we have is positions he's taken in legal briefs, which mean NOTHING. In my legal career, I have written some pretty strong language in briefs advocating positions I personally disagreed with.
If the CJ is in the majority he/she can elect to write the majority opinion or choose who to assign it to.
The CJ also gets to preside over impeachment trials
Ann is completely out-to-lunch on this one. Proving once again that she doesn't really care whether she is accurate, just as long as she can ensure that no one gets to her right. While it may be entertaining red meat, when one becomes that predictable there is nothing particularly illuminating about what one has to say.
Well, I'm grateful that you're controversial and all, Ann, but I don't think you should compare yourself to a Supreme Court Justice.
(BTW...I did enjoy Ann's book, "Treason".)
Why should the scrawny girl wait so long?
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.