Skip to comments.ANN COULTER VS. JOHN ROBERTS
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.
Ok, Who has the crystal ball?
Coulter was wrong. Her column about Roberts had to be the worst one she's written since she spoke against legalizing drugs.
Ann is Paranoid !
Show some faith in your President.
Not everything will go your way !
An anti-Roe nominee should make the case that the Supremes should merely return to the Senate the right to legislate.
The best one can do -- as a citizen or a Senator -- is delve deeply into the philosophy of the nominee and see whether he agrees with the President that Justices should enforce the Constitution, not rewrite it.
By that standard, I think Roberts will be a fine Justice.
Ramesh must need "puffing" to compare himself with Ann.
Good thing he doesn't influence many thinkers.
It's not about Roe... Roe is only one example of what happens when the SC "legislates from the bench". It's about upholding the Cosntitution in its original intent. If every SC candidate is put through the Roe litmus test by the donkeys AS WELL AS THE REPUBLICANS we have missed the bigger picture. For those who want Roe overturned, I suggest a strategy where it is done in phases. This is the very thing liberals fear and probably the most effective strategy in a country that DOES now freqently parrot the phrase "a women's right to choose".
Showing faith in stealth nominees by republican presidents hasn't exactly been working out.
It's all about Roe & Gay Marriage make no mistake.
What's the point? That W should withdraw John Roberts and appoint someone more conservative? What are the chances of that? Or is the point that all the stalwart conservatives should oppose the President and join with Schumer and Kennedy in defeating Roberts?
What is Ann actually proposing besides a lot of attention for herself?
I think that's very possible ten or fifteen years from now but not at the moment.
Many people change over time, and their values change as well. How can we be sure that today's Conservative isn't tomorrow's liberal activist?
At the moment Robert's seems to be a reliable pick for the court, but the people have no way to get rid of a judge after he's appointed and confirmed. Impeachment is a farce, and Congress has a Committee on the Judiciary that never takes a judge to task for any unconstitutional ruling.
The temptation to create unconstitutional law is too great to leave to unaccountable jurists. More checks are needed on the judiciary, and Congress must be held responsible for their lack of judicial oversight.
Ann is expressing her worries as we have been burned before but I don't agree with her on this one. Of course no one can be certain. Perhaps she is a little upset that her preferred choice, whomever that person is, was not chosen. I trust President Bush and I think he did his best to choose someone that, in the end, we will all be happy with.
Let's ask faithincowboys and extremely extreme extremist. They seem to know a lot about what's best for the president and the Supreme Court.
FIRST AND MOST IMPORTANT:
Rule One: You cannot post about Ann without a picture. This is regulary noted rule, the moderator should note this.
Second: Ann has a right to state her opinion, just like we do.
Third: I tend to agree with your comments but keep in mind the senate hearings are over a month away and we need to spend this time researching him and making decisions then.
Finally: Always refer to Rule One.
At that time she can be a voice for our side in explaining lots of things including Plame etc. JMO
Whoaaaah... did a double take at the date. Wayforward machine.
Only the current examples. There's also eminent domain and who knows what over the horizon. My point is not to get bogged down in only one issue as the democrats have done.
I think she's wrong on this one. Roberts is a good choice. Bush comes through again!
Coulter was wrong. Her column about Roberts had to be the worst one she's written....
Barring another Souter tragedy, I too think Ann was overreacting here. On balance, I think alot of TRUE conservatives are very concerned about many of Bush's actions and positions, I for one, and we are on edge a bit. The border situation, the ramrodding of free trade (CAFTA), major cases in point.
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.
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.
Roberts has a long history both in government and private practice. He is no mystery candidate.
usually i'm on board with ann coulter, but not on this one.
proof is 5-10 years away.
SOUTER IN ROBERTS CLOTHING, ANN COULTER
Posted by Babu
On News/Activism 07/20/2005 7:33:31 AM PDT · 814 replies · 16,779+ views
Ann Coulter.com ^ | 7-30-05 | Ann Coulter
Any reason you wouldn't you want Coulter on your team?
But remember that Reagan was dealing with a large number of donkeys in the senate. Bork, well . . . got Borked. Kennedy took his spot. We are lucky that he was able to get Scalia through. Fortunately the timing was just right there.
Now Stevens, he was appointed by perhaps the most liberal Republican president we have ever had (Ford). No surprise there.
Roberts is the real deal. From his statements and reputation, his wife's VERY strong pro life activism, and Chuckies obvious worries, all signs point to this being a great nomination. I for one am encouraged.
If Roberts ends up being a Rhenquist, then Ann's column will be little remebered years from now as anything more than a deviant error.
If Roberts ends up as a Kennedy or Souter, then Ann will be remembered as the genius Supreme Court Prognosticator.
In fact, even if Roberts is a Rhenquist, every rare time he departs from the desires of particular conservatives, we will hear a chorus of "Coulter was right".
Church going Catholics for the most part tend to be more Conservitive.
He thinks there's a case for hopefulness?
If that's the best he can do, he has proved Miss Coulter's point.