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 don't know.
Folks I do like support him.
He does not though have the solid cred of a Brown or Luttig but we shall see.
(I know you said "for the most part tend", I just couldn't resist)
I know.;)
Going to church twice a year or only when they are running for election doesn't count as church going.
"--- 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 -- "
Amen and Ya-Mon. You forgot to mention that he spends like a drunken DemonRat.
I'm starting to buy into the idea that putting up some conservative resistance would work in Roberts favor AND that Ann is doing exactly that.
I just never get tired of pics of the lovely Ann.
A quote from the column in question.
The bigger picture is liberals can get open liberals like Ruth "Buzzy" Ginsburg appointed while Republicans and conservatives have to sidle up with "stealth nominees". Shows you who's on top, and who's values rule.
I remain optimistic about Roberts. (gulp!)
Coulter was wrong. Her column about Roberts had to be the worst one she's written since she spoke against legalizing drugs.
No, Ann Coulter is Right, and She is not alone. Joseph Farah
has an article out today questioning Roberts, and I just read one more... You havent got the Guts to admit that Bush is Playing this down the middle, just like everything else he does.
He is a chip off the "New World Order" Daddy Bush.
Ann is Paranoid !
Show some faith in your President.
Not everything will go your way !
Thats what they said the last time and we got the Shaft!
Wake Up! Bush is selling you down the River!
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?
This is the same Gutless argument used to convince us we Needed Arnold for Gov of california, when it was McClintock
who should have won, your reasoning is the Logic of Cowardice.
The Dims aren't raising enough hell about JR
and that bothers me more than anything!!!
If she went head over heels for JR, Dems would point to Ann being too happy about the nomination.
She wasnt touting a woman was she? (she wanted Ben!)
She was also touting a brilliant, conservative mind, and JR is that.
Likewise they would oppose making abortion illegal on a federal level as this is the job for the states.
Bookmarking for years from now when she may have been right.
Nobody knows until he is on the bench so anything is possible.
Roe should be chipped away at until there's no pro abortion constituency left. It will never be just overturned, and if it is pubs would risk a serious political backlash.
"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."
If I'm not mistaken that was the entire point of Coulter's column. And that Roberts didn't have a visible philosophy.
A lot of people seem to think she said something else, based on the headline, "SOUTER IN ROBERTS' CLOTHING." There probably should have been a question mark.
The problem she raised is buying a pig in a poke. It's not like the GOP has had a good record. Ike thought Earl Warren was a conservative, you know.
I suspect Coulter is thinking a tad over the heads of most of those people.
As anyone can tell, that is an objection to Congress and the Court using the Interstate Commerce clause to cover subjects that NEVER cross a state line. That's the way Scalia and Thomas think. And that is very visible. One just has to pay attention.
John / Billybob
It is hard to imagine the guy being married to such a pro life activist, then see him voting with the liberal block on the social issues.
A wussy nomination would have been to put Clement on the bench.
The only nomination that would satisfy some people around here would be Luttig or Roy Moore (both of whom I would be ecstatic about BTW). Maybe Luttig will come up to replace the Chief Justice.
My point is that we should give the man a chance, and the benefit of the doubt. Why would Bush appoint such strong conservatives to the circuit courts, only to have their rulings shot down by the Supremes? It just doesn't make sense.
Bush is aware of the Souter legacy that regrettably left behind by his father. I am sure Bush Sr. is profoundly disappointed by that decision. I mean, this is the same guy who put Thomas on the bench! Credit is due where it is due.
We should not be so quick to eat our own. It seems like so many always think the worst, then spin the good things as somehow being a negative. Just think about how disgusted people (Freepers) were when they thought Clement was it! It didn't happen. A brief moment of excitement, then nothing but tomatoes. It is wearing me out.
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.