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.
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.
Yes. Her outrageous statements about killing and/or converting all muslims to christianity were not something I would be supporting.
Coulter is Bush's ace in the hole.
He's told the Dems:
"Confirm Roberts or you get a recess appointment of Coulter."
That's why this is a brilliant move on her part. Zero risk - if she's wrong, nobody will remember, if she's right, she looks brilliant.
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.
__Maybe you're right...but Ann's column should put us on notice about what to watch for in the confirmation hearings....Roberts must forthrightly say that he's a conservative and that he values the original text of the Constitution...no weaseling, no sucking up to Leahy or Kennedy.
"Not everything will go your way !"
--- Other than the temporary death tax cuts and the federal marginal rate cuts, I'm waiting for some "thing to go" my way. Besides those (early in 1st term) & his response to 9/11, "W" has been somewhat of a dissapointment to me.
examples --
Fighting the WOT with one hand tied behind our backs. Didn't we learn from Veitnam that providing the enemy a sanctuary to retreat to is stupid (then Laos, now mosques).
Coddling the prisoners at Club Gitmo. They are eating & living better than our service men & women. H'l, they are apparently living better than Judith Miller is right now. Why are we the giving the terrorists Korans, especially since our soldiers are not allowed to receive Bibles?
Huge increases in federal government size & spending (outside of DOD).
Non support of his own nominees to the appelate courts. He reacted faster & stronger in his suppor of Gonzales then he did for all of his filibustered nominees combined.
Open borders support. Minutemen being called vigilantes. Kissy face with V Fox. Encouraging illegal acts through talk of an amnesty (regardless of what name is used for the program).
African aid give away. More of my tax dollars down into the bottomless pit of corruption.
Signing of the McCain - Feingold repeal of the 1st Amendment.
Too low of a veto percentage. I'm not sure if he's vetoed any bill.
Retaining holdovers from the previous occupant's administration. Mineta is a perfect example. By keeping & supporting Mineta, "W" is oking the profiling of grandmas.
Campaigning in primaries to help RINOs against Republicans. What is the sense of having a RINO sitting in a seat when he / she is not going to support the President and Party anyway?
Adopting & supporting Ted Kennedy's bill to grow the Dept of Education.
"W" seems to be a nice guy, glad is is fighting the WOT.
He is better than Gore or Kerry. But on the other hand, I can say the same thing about Neville Chamberlin with respect to Hitler & Mussolini. I'd rather have "W" be a Churchill.
"Church going Catholics for the most part tend to be more Conservitive."
--- You mean like Kerry & Kennedy?
(I know you said "for the most part tend", I just couldn't resist)
bttt
Damn...are we supposed to just "hope".
IS that the best we can "hope" for?
Falwell, Dobson , and Mark Levin all support Roberts.
Culturally...am I missing something here?
Only the best black hashish temple balls from Goa will do...
Is there any truth to what she's saying? I only like him because his wife is now driving the feminists bananas too. It's like a twofer almost.
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.