Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ANN COULTER VS. JOHN ROBERTS
NRO ^ | 7/21/05 | Ramesh Ponnuru

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.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: coulter; johnroberts; news; ponnuru; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-110 next last

1 posted on 07/21/2005 6:00:22 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Ok, Who has the crystal ball?


2 posted on 07/21/2005 6:02:45 AM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Coulter was wrong. Her column about Roberts had to be the worst one she's written since she spoke against legalizing drugs.


3 posted on 07/21/2005 6:02:50 AM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Ann is Paranoid !

Show some faith in your President.

Not everything will go your way !


4 posted on 07/21/2005 6:03:58 AM PDT by Zenith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

An anti-Roe nominee should make the case that the Supremes should merely return to the Senate the right to legislate.


5 posted on 07/21/2005 6:08:18 AM PDT by Uncle Miltie (Islam: Nothing couldn't cure!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist; Tumbleweed_Connection
I'm with both of you, and agree with this article. Especially important is the point that no Justice should, in effect, guarantee in advance that he/she will vote a certain way in a certain case. That's a disqualifying mistake.

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.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "Re: John Roberts, Supreme Court Nominee"

6 posted on 07/21/2005 6:08:25 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob (Will President Bush's SECOND appointment obey the Constitution? I give 95-5 odds on yes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Ramesh must need "puffing" to compare himself with Ann.

Good thing he doesn't influence many thinkers.


7 posted on 07/21/2005 6:08:32 AM PDT by Spirited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

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".


8 posted on 07/21/2005 6:10:02 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zenith

Showing faith in stealth nominees by republican presidents hasn't exactly been working out.


9 posted on 07/21/2005 6:11:26 AM PDT by kharaku (G3 (http://www.cobolsoundsystem.com/mp3s/unreleased/evewasanape.mp3))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rhombus

It's all about Roe & Gay Marriage make no mistake.


10 posted on 07/21/2005 6:11:56 AM PDT by kharaku (G3 (http://www.cobolsoundsystem.com/mp3s/unreleased/evewasanape.mp3))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

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?


11 posted on 07/21/2005 6:12:05 AM PDT by claudiustg (Go Sharon! Go Bush!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
And it is possible; those of us who defend him now may end up having reasons for regret.

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.

12 posted on 07/21/2005 6:13:19 AM PDT by Noachian (To Control the Judiciary The People Must First Control The Senate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

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.


13 posted on 07/21/2005 6:14:04 AM PDT by sydbas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun; faithincowboys; Extremely Extreme Extremist

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.


14 posted on 07/21/2005 6:15:09 AM PDT by rabidralph (We are surrounded by pants-wetting FReepers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

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.


15 posted on 07/21/2005 6:15:23 AM PDT by edcoil (Reality doesn't say much - doesn't need too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
IMO what better way for her to be invited on every liberal news show but to show disregard for the nominee.

At that time she can be a voice for our side in explaining lots of things including Plame etc. JMO

16 posted on 07/21/2005 6:15:48 AM PDT by DainBramage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Whoaaaah... did a double take at the date. Wayforward machine.


17 posted on 07/21/2005 6:16:15 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (No wonder the Southern Baptist Church threw Greer out: Only one god per church! [Ann Coulter])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kharaku
It's all about Roe & Gay Marriage make no mistake.

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.

18 posted on 07/21/2005 6:16:46 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

I think she's wrong on this one. Roberts is a good choice. Bush comes through again!


19 posted on 07/21/2005 6:17:25 AM PDT by loreldan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

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.


20 posted on 07/21/2005 6:19:21 AM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

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?


21 posted on 07/21/2005 6:20:19 AM PDT by Calusa (Say Nick, was ya ever stung by a dead bee?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rabidralph
They seem to know a lot about what's best for the president and the Supreme Court.

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!

22 posted on 07/21/2005 6:21:51 AM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

Sorry, I'm boycotting the Ann Coulter rule for now.


23 posted on 07/21/2005 6:23:03 AM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Zenith

"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.


24 posted on 07/21/2005 6:25:26 AM PDT by BadAndy (Specializing in unnecessarily harsh comments.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

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.


25 posted on 07/21/2005 6:26:59 AM PDT by katieanna
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
You can't blame her for feeling that way... just look to Souter before you dismiss her to the looney-bin.

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!

26 posted on 07/21/2005 6:30:08 AM PDT by johnny7 ('I bet 'ya think I'm 'kickin you Bob...! -Sheriff 'Little Bill' Dagget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: claudiustg
What is Ann actually proposing besides a lot of attention for herself?

That about what she usually proposes.

27 posted on 07/21/2005 6:30:10 AM PDT by wingnutx (Seabees Can Do!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: edcoil
In accordance with Rule Number One, I hereby post the following required Ann Coulter photo:


28 posted on 07/21/2005 6:32:27 AM PDT by FReepaholic (When I read about the evils of drinking, I gave up reading)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: BadAndy

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.


29 posted on 07/21/2005 6:35:59 AM PDT by Spirited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Zenith
Ann is simply remembering the Souter disappointment.

We are still paying for that.

She simply wants a nominee who will say point blank that he opposes abortion.

I understand her fear, but hope Roberts will come through at the appointed time.

We'll have to pray and wait and pray and wait.
30 posted on 07/21/2005 6:39:56 AM PDT by Preachin' (Georgia finally saw the light in 2000.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: claudiustg

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.


31 posted on 07/21/2005 6:40:25 AM PDT by Bushbacker (f----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: claudiustg

Invitations to the cocktail circuit


32 posted on 07/21/2005 6:40:33 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection (I take the Ginsburg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Comment #33 Removed by Moderator

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Maybe Ann is trying to give Judge Roberts some cover ("Look, extreme right-winger Ann Coulter is against John Roberts, so he can't be that conservative.")

Her column may be Machiavellian/Rovian/Don't-Throw-Me-In-That-Bryer-Patch-ian.

34 posted on 07/21/2005 6:45:07 AM PDT by Martin Tell (Red States [should act like they] Rule)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

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.


35 posted on 07/21/2005 6:46:04 AM PDT by Future Snake Eater (The plan was simple, like my brother-in-law Phil. But unlike Phil, this plan just might work.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johnny7
I do not, and never would, "dismiss Coulter to the looney bin." She is one smart cookie. And I see what she has for a basis of her conclusion. I think she exaggerates the facts (which she frequently does, to savage rhetorical effect). And I think that in this instance, she reached the wrong conclusion.

Insert here a few bars of that country music favorite, "If I said you reached the wrong conclusion / would you hold it against me?" LOL.

John / Billybob
36 posted on 07/21/2005 6:48:03 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob (Will President Bush's SECOND appointment obey the Constitution? I give 95-5 odds on yes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

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.


37 posted on 07/21/2005 6:51:17 AM PDT by OldFriend (MERCY TO THE GUILTY IS CRUELTY TO THE INNOCENT ~ Adam Smith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
Coulter was wrong. Her column about Roberts had to be the worst one she's written since she spoke against legalizing drugs

I agree. I love Ann, but she was out to lunch on this one.

38 posted on 07/21/2005 6:53:51 AM PDT by proud American in Canada
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Bushbacker

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.


39 posted on 07/21/2005 6:54:26 AM PDT by claudiustg (Go Sharon! Go Bush!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Zenith
Show some faith in your President. Not everything will go your way !

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.

40 posted on 07/21/2005 6:54:35 AM PDT by Protagoras (Now that the frog is fully cooked, how would you like it served?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: johnny7
If I am not mistaken, Souter did not work in Reagan's administration, nor did he work in the Solicitor General's Office.

Roberts has a long history both in government and private practice. He is no mystery candidate.

41 posted on 07/21/2005 6:54:37 AM PDT by OldFriend (MERCY TO THE GUILTY IS CRUELTY TO THE INNOCENT ~ Adam Smith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

42 posted on 07/21/2005 6:54:44 AM PDT by cartoonistx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

usually i'm on board with ann coulter, but not on this one.


proof is 5-10 years away.


43 posted on 07/21/2005 6:55:33 AM PDT by ken21 (it takes a village to brainwash your child + to steal your property! /s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
The thread about her anti-Roberts article DID attract a lot of attention here:
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

44 posted on 07/21/2005 6:56:42 AM PDT by RonDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend

Any reason you wouldn't you want Coulter on your team?


45 posted on 07/21/2005 6:57:54 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection (I take the Ginsburg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Bushbacker
The only one you mentioned that was appointed by an Republican that there is no excuse for is Souter. OK, we got bamboozled on that one for sure.

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.

46 posted on 07/21/2005 6:59:11 AM PDT by Clump
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

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".


47 posted on 07/21/2005 7:00:17 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BadAndy
I have heard that Roberts is a church going(weekly) Catholic.Does anyone know if that is true?

Church going Catholics for the most part tend to be more Conservitive.

48 posted on 07/21/2005 7:00:49 AM PDT by painter (We celebrate liberty which comes from God not from government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Preachin'
She simply wants a nominee who will say point blank that he opposes abortion.


Being willing to do that is contrary to the notion of judicial restraint.

Politicians should tell you what they oppose. Judges should rule on the law, not on their preferences.

Restrained judges would tend to oppose Roe not because they don't like abortion, but because Roe is bad law.
49 posted on 07/21/2005 7:02:04 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
I certainly hope that pro-lifers don't get taken again, but I think there's a case for hopefulness.

He thinks there's a case for hopefulness?

If that's the best he can do, he has proved Miss Coulter's point.

50 posted on 07/21/2005 7:02:27 AM PDT by Oliver Optic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-110 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson