Posted on 07/21/2005 6:00:22 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
I think she raises some points worth pondering in her column, but ultimately I disagree with her.
She wants a justice who will vote to overturn Roe. So do I. She dislikes the stealth-nominee strategy. So do I. She thinks that it is possible that he could end up compiling a record like the one Souter has. And it is possible; those of us who defend him now may end up having reasons for regret.
But while it is possible that a nominee who openly pledged that he would vote to overturn Roe could get confirmed, it is not at all obvious. There are at least 50 senators who support Roe. A definitely-anti-Roe nominee might be able to win some votes from pro-Roe senators, but no Republican nominee is guaranteed the votes of every anti-Roe senator. (Reid and Pryor might find ways to vote with their caucus.) So it may be necessary to nominate someone who is not 100 percent certain to vote against Roe.
There aren't many possible nominees who would provide that certainty. Michael McConnell has, for example, strongly criticized Roe. But he has never, to my knowledge, said that it should be overturned; it's possible that as a justice he would consider himself obligated to re-affirm the precedent. And again, going any further would at least imperil confirmation.
But the fact that someone isn't certain to vote a particular way does not mean that we can't make inferences. The pro-choicers are, I think, correct to suggest that Roberts's participation in the Rust v. Sullivan brief raises the likelihood that he would vote to overturn Roe. It's not dispositive, but it does establish that he's not so favorable to abortion rights that he felt it necessary to resign or refuse as a matter of conscience to participate in the case. The fact that Roberts's wife is pro-life isn't dispositive, either, but obviously it raises the likelihood, too.
In the cases of O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter, we didn't have these pro-life clues, and indeed in some cases we had some clues that went the other way--strong ones in the case of O'Connor.
So I think Roberts is likely to make the right decision on abortion, and that is among my reasons for supporting him. But the fact that none of us can be certain is one of the things that may get him confirmed. I certainly hope that pro-lifers (and conservatives generally--as I've argued before, I think that Roe is a useful albeit imperfect index for the other views we should want in a judge) don't get taken again, but I think there's a case for hopefulness.
I was listening to Bill Bennett on my way to work and he expressed the same concerns about Souter, O'Connor and Kennedy. Of course, Ann puts the issue in her own delightful, high contrast, high resolution perspective. I think her point gets made. But, you go to war with the resources you got. And football is a game of inches. Any Ann Coulter pix?
Screw you - I never insinuated such a thing, OK? All I said was that Coulter was off base in her latest column. Did I nitpick over Bush's nominee? No!
Sorry, I'm boycotting the Ann Coulter rule for now.
"Ann is Paranoid !
Show some faith in your President. "
Ann is right to be skeptical. How many times do you have to get burned before you learn? We would OWN the court if Republicans hadn't been fooled by phony conservatives. When this guy was nominated many pointed to his membership in the Federalist Society as proof of his conservatism. Now we learn he was never a member.
I have a simple test to identify a suitable candidate. The louder the Rat party screams, the more suitable he is. I don't hear much screaming, in fact they have nice things to say. My Souter alarm is on RED.
I don't understand Coulter's characterizing Roberts as 'stealth'. Seems he is quite the known quantity in Washington on Capitol Hill and throughout the legal community.
We ALL just have to hope that Dub'ya made the RIGHT choice on Roberts... and that when Rehnquist steps down... we put in a Janice Rogers Brown!
That about what she usually proposes.
Thanks Andy, there are a few of us who are sick of being betrayed whatever the reason.
All we can do is what we did with Souter et al...hope and pray.
After the Souter disaster, Ann is right to be concerned. Look, Republican Presidents have named 7
of 9 current justices...and only 3 are bona fide conservatives...Stevens and Souter are yahoo liberals...O'Connor and
Kennedy have been all over the place...Once Roberts is confirmed, nothing can be done, we're stuck with him and he is only 50 years ild, which means he could be there for 30 years or more.
I jhave heard positive things about Roberts from some very partisan Democratic friends of mine and that worries me.
Invitations to the cocktail circuit
Her column may be Machiavellian/Rovian/Don't-Throw-Me-In-That-Bryer-Patch-ian.
I love Ann to death, but he arguments against Roberts weren't nearly convincing enough to definitively say that "Bush has screwed us!"
This is really just a wait-and-see kind of thing.
Ann just looking for some publicity. As usual she says something to bring attention her way and as usual, she doesn't care if it's positive or negative attention as long as she gets mentioned.
I agree. I love Ann, but she was out to lunch on this one.
So what's to be done? Withdraw or oppose? I guess we can just all go around feeling bad, but I kind of like the Dims in that role.
I think that are expressed concerns have a legitimate outlet in influencing future policy decisions. If grousing about Roberts is a strategy to influence the next pick, maybe there's some utility in it.
Good idea.
Signed the repeal of first amendment, Signed the repeal of the forth amendment, brand new huge entitlement to give drugs to seniors, no border controls, suck up to fat ass Ted Kennedy while cementing government interference in education, advocating government control of private religious charities, no WMDs.
So yes, it's really a time to show some faith.
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.