Here's my favorite of Ann.
Posted on 07/20/2005 7:33:31 AM PDT by Babu
The unfortunate truth many don't want to hear.
Well, first off, I would suspect that at the bottom of all those relentless emails you're getting is a line something like "Please send a donation to help us support the nomination of John Roberts." Also, just because a group is conservative doesn't make them any less gullible than a liberal group. I am not even necessarily claiming that these groups are wrong. All I'm saying is that, in large part, it is wishful thinking to state that John Roberts is a diehard conservative. We've got people looking at what groups his wife belongs to and how many children he has to determine whether he may overturn Roe v. Wade. We have people pointing to the brief he helped write for the first Bush Administration which opined that Roe was wrongly decided and should be revisited. Lawyers are taught to put forth viewpoints on behalf of their client that they themselves may not necessarily believe in.
We all want to believe that John Roberts is an originalist and will interpret the Constitution that way. My point is, and has been, that John Roberts doesn't have a record of the caliber of, say a Judge Samuel Alito, or Judge Emilio Garza or Edith Hollans Jones, where you can point to decision after decision after decision and say, "now, that's based on an originalist interpretation of the document." So, it becomes very difficult to actually ascertain his true judicial philosophy. Part of the reason he doesn't, is, of course, that he hasn't been on the Appeals Court for very long. Secondly, he seems to have taken pains in the past to dissociate himself from positions that might generate controversy. If he decided an issue based on a particular philosophy, he should be able to articulate it and defend it....not try to make himself the smallest target possible. To me, it seems we are so worried that there is a battle coming during confirmation that we are trying to minimize the arguments. That is a liberal strategy. You pass yourself off as something innocuous. What I'm saying is that, if John Roberts believes in an originalist philosophy of interpreting the Constitution (which we can't really tell because of the paucity of his record), he (or any nominee) should be able to explain the rationale for such a decision. Whether you believe this was a good nomination depends on several factors. First, I think he is obviously better than Gonzales would have been. But, then, that little voice whispers to me wondering if that might not have been a bit of strategy in and of itself....float a name of someone unsuitable to the base, then name a relative unknown....we'd be too busy breathing a sigh at dodging the Gonzales bullet that we'd forget that we only have some people's word that this guy is the real deal. Again, let me emphasize, other than one or two decisions that might indicate he could be a future swing vote there is not enough evidence to judge definitively either way, which, considering the importance of the position for which he's been nominated, and the other available candidates in whom we could have more confidence. For example, his comments in his dissent in Rancho Viejo v. Norton, in which he dissented from the decision of the court the Constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act arises from the Commerce Clause of the Constitution sounds like a good originalist reading of the Constitution...but then he goes further and urges that they could find other reasons to uphold the act, which sounds a bit activist to me. In any case, all I'm saying is that there were better choices to make than this one. We don't know, from his opinions, his judicial philosophy. We have heard more than once that a President has nominated a "solid" conservative only to have them become the next swing vote. In order to make confirmation easier, they have again chosen a judge that affords the smallest target. That is a good strategy for a rabbit in a field, but not for your pick for a lifetime position deciding matters of Constitutionality especially when you had available other potential nominees about whom you had little doubt.
No need for apology. We all do it. We get about halfway through one of these long threads (500 replies or greater) and see a comment that we want to respond to, not realizing someone else has already made our brilliant point for us about 50 posts down the line!
Man did you miss the target.
By light years!
I want a site where the truth can be spoken. A site where research and fact are accepted when it runs contrary to the cheerleaders.
Your analysis collapsed--I suggest you read a bit closer before posting.
I have been saying on these threads for the past few days that for all the trouble we will have to go through regardless, we ought to have more assurance about what we are actually fighting for. All we have right now, as far as I can determine, is a guy who is very bright and has built a solid resume but, as you said, no real track record to give us insight into a philosophy you can hang your hat on.
Ping.
Is that some kind of oxymoron?
http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_1871.shtml
These guys aren't too excited about Roberts, either, although IMHO this is a speedbump complaint, not a roadblock.
Until, of course, HRC becomes Der Fuhrer...
The guy who couldn't put away the most corrupt President in history?
LOL!
Ummmnnnhhh...by your dictum, cretins like Spectral Specter, John McPain, and others, would be immune from criticism for their ridiculous, abhorrent, and deviant positions.
RR nodded on that one. Don't make the same error.
Yes, that is my only worry. While I like and admire President Bush, for a nomination of this magnitude, I'd have been much more comfortable with someone about whom there was little doubt where he stood with regard to judicial philosophy. I have also been very frank in that I don't want a conservative judge because I dislike judicial activism, whether from the left or from the right. I want an originalist, one who will interpret the document as written and as understood at the time of its adoption. By happy coincidence, the vast majority of conservative positions agree with originalist interpretations. If they aren't, however, then we need to walk the talk and persuade our fellow citizens to passing laws to reflect any conservative beliefs we value that are not reflected in the Constitution, as Justice Scalia repeatedly scolds the liberals to do.
Replace a moderate with some a little more conservative.
Replace Rehnquist, a conservative with another solid conservative.
The goal is to change the ideological makeup of the Court.
If we could swing one vote our way, that is all it would take.
If one of the liberal judges retire during the next three years, expect to have a moderate put in, moving the Court even more to the Right.
In the end, all judical nominations are unknown quality.
Ike believed that the worst decision he made during his Presidency was putting Earl Warrren in.
Starr is a LOT less "conservative" than most people think, and an incompetent, to boot--as you observe.
How does Feminists for Life differ from that Goddess philosophy?
Would they outlaw abortions as murder?
Assinine article. Yep, despite Roberts being in the Federalist Society, clerking for Reinquist, and running in GOP cicles all his life, he's really a closeted liberal.
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.