ANN COULTER VS. JOHN ROBERTS

NRO ^ | 7/21/05 | Ramesh Ponnuru

[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.

[claudiustg]

---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. ---

Yes, I see it clearly now, better to go down in glorious defeat, than operate within the bounds of the possible. Your's is the logic of the jihadist.

[Sam Hill]

"In the toad case he questioned whether the Endangered Species Act could constitutionally be applied to a creature "which spent its entire life within the boundaries of California."

Yeah, that settles it for sure. He's another Scalia. LOL

I think Coulter's point was that Bush could have and should have picked a "bright line" conservative.

I hope it works out that way, but it's still largely a hope.

[OESY]

Thanks Ann!


I suspect Ann Coulter just handed future Supreme Court Justice John Roberts his best chance of getting confirmed:

We don’t know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever... Oh, yeah...we know he's argued cases before the supreme court. big deal; so has Larry Flynt's attorney.

This could be a brilliant head fake. Something designed to tamp down the left's well-funded lying hate machine that's just begun to warm up. Regardless, it will certainly help conservative talking heads to diffuse the coming "Right wing extremist" talk. Can't you hear them:

"If he's everything you're accusing him of, why is Ann Coulter so opposed to him?"

Here are my initial thoughts on the kind of justice Roberts will be:

Here you have a nominee who's 50 years old. That means he's young enough to have seen and learned from the Bork and Thomas hearings. That means he's young enough to have not created a career paper trail filled with landmines Ted Kennedy can jump on.

I suspect Roberts is very conservative in the Clarence Thomas mold. I suspect Bush knows this. I suspect the Democrats do as well. And I also suspect Roberts has been planning his whole career for this moment and is well-positioned to get on the court and tip it strongly our way.

-- Dirty Harry, gopvixen.blogs.com/

[Congressman Billybob]

Scalia was in the majority in the last good Commerce Clause case, when the Court struck down the federal law about guns within 1,000 yards of a school. The logic was that the presence or absence of guns in such locations had nothing to do with INTERstate Commerce.

As I said, Roberts' reasoning in his case is identical to Scalia's logic in the last good Commerce Clause case in the Supreme Court. Toads are a lot less important than the rights of citizens to carry guns. But that makes my point that the real importance of a case is not the specific result for the specific parties; it is the theory of constitutional law which underlies the decision.

It is that logic which offers the long-term promise, or threat, of each Supreme Court case.

John / Billybob

[Bushbacker]

He owes them no explanation on how he would rule on a particular issue.

____OK, true, but he should give us a view about his attitude toward the text of the Constitution...if he is not an originalist, I would not want him on the Court.

[BamaAndy]

I still love her books and enjoy her words. She's a great advocate.

[skeptoid]

Y-e-e-ssss!

[DameAutour]

Why do people (including Ann Coulter) judge President Bush by the record of other Republican Presidents? I'm young, and when Souter was the nominee I was barely a preteen. So I haven't felt the burn as acutely. However, I think there is more than a little paranoia on display.

If you are going to judge Bush by what has happened historically, how about judging him by the numerous judges he has already nominated for federal positions? Bush himself has enough of a track record in this regard so that no one has to look to see what Reagan did or what GHW Bush did more than a decade ago.

And the record is clear. George W. Bush has a solid record of nominating conservative judges.

I admit it can be somewhat scary, how little is actually known about John Roberts. You're afraid to trust in the recommendations of solid conservatives like Mark Levin or Hugh Hewitt, because solid conservatives have been wrong in the past.

But the one thing that is so wonderful and also frustrating about Bush is how consistent he is on particular issues. Just as he is maddeningly consistent on his stance that Islam is a "religion of peace" and his lax attitude with regard to illegal immigration, he is equally as consistent with regard to his judicial nominees. Bush is not really a man of surprises if you pay attention to him and understand him.

[scrabblehack]

I think Coulter's response is the real deal (she is honestly skeptical about it). Also she correctly states that it is not necessary to use the stealth nominee in order to win. Conservatives are not going to win arguments if they never bring the subjects up.

[Def Conservative]

I agree.

God forbid Hillary become President. If she has the chance to nominate somebody to the SCOTUS I highly doubt she'll go for somebody this "safe" without a questionable Roe record.

Because remember, only a person practically in bed with NARAL deserves to serve on the court these days.

Sheesh. Democrats have become the party of obstruct, the GOP has become the party of appeasement. Great!

[Babu]

I liked Ann Coulter's column on Roberts, and I think she made some very good points. I have all fingers and toes crossed and rubbing me lucky rabbit's foot that the guy turn's out to be like a Thomas or Scalia, but the point is, the skepticism of some of us is legitimate and reasonable. We just don't know how this guy will turn out, because, we have been burned by these pubbie nominees time after time after time.

7 of 9 judges on SCOTUS are pubbie nominees ... We should already own that court, but we're not even close to owning it, are we? ... There's a dose of track record reality ...

Given those facts, I don't see justification to get all excited about this nomination at this time. And neither do I understand the need to savage Ann for her very legitimate point of view. I feel it is prudent to reserve judgement until we see what Roberts does over time.

How will he withstand the pressures of the East Coast Media savaging him for decisions they hate? (And they will!) Will he remain strong and indifferent, like Thomas and Scalia? Or will he buckle and drift to the Left to lower the heat and be liked, like Souter, Kennedy, and O'Connor? Truth is, no one knows. Not Bush, probably not even Roberts himself.

It concerns me that he is already a socialite in the Beltway, which gives them a shot at persuading him. I'd rather he was more of a hermit in that sense, like Thomas.

[Ol' Sparky]

We need to have at least 80 Republicans in the Senate before conservatives can get an open originalist appointed...

Yet, Clinton and the Democrats had no problem whatsoever getting the head counsel for the ACLU and another radicial liberal judge appointed.

[Ol' Sparky]

Ann is right. We need to demand justices we KNOW are originalists and anti-Roe. If not, we shouldn't be surprised and have no one to blame but ourselves if we don't get one.

Accepting stealth candidates is losing strategy. And, with 55 Republicans in the Senate there isn't any reason to have to accept such a strategy.

[Ol' Sparky]

If one won't overturn Roe, one isn't an originalist and will ultimately likely end up going the way of O'Connor and Kennedy.

[Ol' Sparky]

The point is conservatives have to stop acting like compromising losers, get a backbone and start demanding ALL future Supreme Court justices are verifiably Scalia-like originalists. Otherwise, nothing is going to change on the courts.

It's no wonder conservatives have lost this battle some many times. Those representing us don't hesitate to compromise and, like sheep, we follow along and let them.

[Timmy]

Ramesh must need "puffing" to compare himself with Ann. Good thing he doesn't influence many thinkers.

I love Ann Coulter and have three of her books, but I believe Ramesh is a deeper thinker. Ann is a pugilist, and she doesn't attempt to reason carefully.

[Gritty]

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.

And if he doesn't?

It's too late to stop Roberts on the GOP side now that he has been nominated by Bush. Only the Dems can stop him from here on out.

If this isn't the "right" guy, we're scr*wed!

[Ol' Sparky]

There aren't many possible nominees who would provide that certainty

Really? I can think of at least two off the top of my head that would -- Janice Rogers Brown and Edith Hollan Jones. Emillo Garza has stated the issue should be settled through legislation.

[Spirited]

To each his own, Timmy. Those of us who were taken in because Souter was introduced with the same words W used for Roberts choose to remember and hesitate and Ann speaks for those of us who have been there, done that and live to reap the appalling consequences.

I devoutly hope that we need not have hesitated. I think he may be a man of character and that is a relief but Beltway Fever is a gripping malady and mushy headedness can be the result.

In any event he is not the Scalia/Thomas type Bush promised. The most I can surmise is that he is a moderate in the mold of his mentor which is why the Dems only need to make a little noise to deceive the naive.

[Timmy]

Well, I don't think the Souter comparison is apt. There was no info on Souter, and the GHW Bush White House admitted later that they never really vetted him, just accepted Sununu's recommendation. There was nothing in his personal history that suggested he would be conservative. As for O'Connor, conservatives knew she was trouble from the beginning. The real disappointment was Kennedy, who I understand was on the board of a conservative crisis preganancy center prior to his nomination and later flipped when he was faced with Casey vs. PP.

Roberts has more conservative credentials than Souter did. And I put a lot of hope on the fact that he is Catholic and his wife is/was a pro-life activist. If you were on the left looking for some reason to believe he was pro-Roe, I think you would be more frustrated than us on the right looking for reasons to believe he is anti-Roe, don't you think? But we won't know for a while.

Cheers.