Skip to comments.What did I tell you?
Posted on 09/20/2005 1:09:28 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
What did I tell you?
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
I predicted Aug. 8 that John Roberts would be confirmed by the U.S. Senate getting all Republican votes and most Democrats.
I reiterated this prediction Aug. 12 with the first real evidence of opposition to Roberts caving because he is not what they most fear about Republican appointees to the court.
And now I can illustrate this unfolding trend by pointing out that the Washington Post formally endorsed confirmation of Roberts last Sunday.
To quote the Post:
John G. Roberts Jr. should be confirmed as chief justice of the United States. He is overwhelmingly well-qualified, possesses an unusually keen legal mind and practices a collegiality of the type an effective chief justice must have. He shows every sign of commitment to restraint and impartiality. Nominees of comparable quality have, after rigorous hearings, been confirmed nearly unanimously. We hope Judge Roberts will similarly be approved by a large bipartisan vote.
Well, I don't hope for such a confirmation. I fear it. I know it is coming. It is inevitable. There is no way around it. But I hope what is unfolding in Washington will serve a higher purpose to awaken freedom-minded and justice-loving and Constitution-revering Americans to the fact that they have been conned, once again, by President Bush.
Most of the individuals and organizations one might expect to protest Roberts' nomination quickly fell into line and endorsed him despite overwhelming evidence he is cut out of the mold of David Souter and Anthony Kennedy.
These "conservative" groups and individuals suggest I am wrong about Roberts and doth protest too much.
Let me tell you why they are wrong and why they should be very alarmed about the nomination of Roberts and his elevation to replace the late Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
First of all, Bush has already effectively weakened the court with this pick. There is no way anyone can make the case that Roberts is as good as Rehnquist. I suppose someone could make the case that he would be better than Sandra Day O'Connor. But does anyone reading this column really expect he will be as strong in his leadership of the court as Rehnquist? Does anyone believe he is as principled? Does anyone believe he possesses Rehnquist's worldview?
I don't think so. So, let's face facts. Bush just pushed the court further in the direction of the activists.
CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE REST
They want a "known" quantity, i.e., someone less "lawyerly" in their responses and someone with a strong trail of decisions that allow us to gauge his judicial philosophy.
Mark Levin's endorsement is all I need.
Mark Levin's endorsement is all I need.
And what did the great one say about Judge Roberts ?
Farah is a Bush hating moron.
Please include original titles to prevent duplicate posts.
Farah is the moron.
An FR search could produce quotes and articles more accurate than what I can give you, but essentially, Levin says Roberts is one of the best choices Bush could have made.
I quit the WND newsletter the same time I deleted Drudge from favorites.
when I found Free Republic.
"Mark Levin's endorsement is all I need."
I, too, would like to read what "The Great One" has to say about Roberts.
Personally I thought Roberts was brilliant during the confirmation hearings.
They assume he is a liberal judge because there is nothing that shows he is a liberal judge ? Quite interesting logic.
And you will be wrong. Most Democrats will vote no.
Which is what? I can buy the argument that there is a lack of evidence that he will be a great conservative, but I have a hard time buying that their is evidence that he will be a Souter.
Get a grip!
Farah is wrong just as often as he's right, if not more so.
Wanting Roberts to open up and tell the Democrats in the Senate and the propaganda mongers in the media what he really thinks is about as stupid an idea as I can think of. But he comes strongly recommended by a large number of people whose opinions I respect, nor have I seen anything in his record or conduct to suggest that they are wrong.
The C.Y.A. approach to John Roberts is a stupid one.
John Roberts is "The Teflon Bork".
The idea that he is another Souter shows the insanity of some on the right. It is this kind of paranoia that has eaten the Democratic Party alive.
Did Mr. Ferret come to this conclusion before or after Harry Reid went on a Senate floor rant against Roberts?
Darn near impossible.
I found Free Republic in '97 after Drudge wrote about it in his newsletter, that I subscribed to.
I lurked for while and became a member in '98. ;)
Stop embarassing Farah by posting his crap in a place where people can read it.
Who cares what they want?
I am amazed by their being soothsayers. They know the future. Must be nice.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
Damn ~ how about those rubber slip on grips. ;)
My S&W CS9 comes with great grips.
Farrah has written about Roberts a few times and I've never seen any evidence that goes beyond speculation. He's as nutty as some on the left.
I am sooo glad Farah is again showing us which path to take, i.e. whichever one he is opposing.
I wonder when this loon will latch onto that acid cloud story that is being parroted by the Weekly World News. It isn't as if WorldNUTDaily is above that or anything.
The only reason why this statement is truthful is because Roberts hasn't set his a** on the SCOTUS bench yet. Extremely speculative and very premature, but truthful.
Some conservatives that are almost hoping for Roberts to turn into a Souter better watch themselves. They may come down with Pat Buchananism disease where they cannot admit they were wrong on an issue and wind up going off the deep end being relegated to "discussing" politics with liberals the likes of Eleanor Clift...
Yeah just before I posted, looking promising.
That's great ~ ya gotta have comfortable grips on your carry piece.
And Farah's disapproval is just icing on the cake.
So 50 opinions on the DC Circuit and 100,000 pages of documents from the Reagan Administration are not good enough? I call BS on this. Farah and his ilk would not be satisfied with anything other than someone who would go before the Judiciary Committee and commit suicide by announcing his/her intention of overturning Roe v. Wade at the first opportunity.
And BTW, if the Democrats had not held up Roberts' initial nomination to the DC Circuit for two years, there would have been a lot more than 50 opinions to look at, and they would be far more influential ones than any from any other circuit or state Supreme Court. I feel a lot more comfortable looking at Roberts' opinions on the Endangered Species Act, the detention of terrorists, and the Fifth and 14th Amendments than I do reading Janice Rogers Brown's red-meat speeches to a conservative group or her dissents to silly California Supreme Court rulings.
It is a back up I have been using Hogue Handall Grips and they are bummer to get off and on to clean the weapon.
Couldn't have put it better myself.
You conceal carry a 1911?
That sounds like a PITA. ;)
I your job calls for a handgun, 1911's are cool.
Here in Oregon we have CCW, I don't know anyone that carries a concealed .45.
I think you are correct; the freakin' GOP needs to see that this will again be a great way to paint the Dems into a corner.
I disagree with Farah, but I'll admit it's frustrating not knowing more. But the fact is (or I strongly suspect) that a true conservative judge could not be confirmed, even with 55 GOP senators, if he came right out and said Roe stinks, and hell yes I would overturn it in a heartbeat.
For this reason, conservative would-be jurists often play it very close to the vest. But then, so do many liberals.
Farah, like Coulter, reminds us that many GOP picks have gone left on us: Brennan, Stevens, Kennedy and O'Connor to a fair degree, and certainly Souter. THAT is why he wants THIS pick to declare himself openly as conservative, etc. Trouble is, as I said above, I suspect that someone like that could not be confirmed: enough GOP senators would bolt, and join the lockstep Dem bloc, to reject the nominee on an up-or-down vote.
I have been know to carry a .41 Mag Mountain gun Concealed 4" barrel, depends on the situation and the holster.
But if Bush thought like trolls on Free Republic, he would be a moron.
I don't think this is fair. 'Lawyerly' does not mean you don't have a position. I regard Scalia and Thomas as very 'lawyerly.' They have a clear, rational judicial philosophy and they apply it in a lawyerly manner.
I'm hoping for the best with Roberts; but it's not at all clear to me that he will be a big improvement over O'Conner. He was a good political move if you define good politics as avoiding a fight and getting someone confirmed. I don't know whether or not he is a good judicial move. That is all Coulter has been saying and she is right. The attacks here on her here are not well thought out.
Given the limited information we have, anyone who thinks that Roberts is a slam dunk to be another Rehnquist, Scalia, or Thomas is deluding themselves. He might be. He might be one of the great triumphs of this administration. He might be the great disaster. We just have no idea whatsoever.
I do not want this party run by the mirror image of the other party. I want us to do a little more thinking, even disagreeing...
But John Roberts is a brilliant jurist and a great human being. I was very impressed.
"They want a 'known quantity'". So do I. I don't want another Souter. If Judge Roberts goes lefty, I say we get rid of the U.S. Supreme Court. Let's let states decide issues and then we can go live in the state that represents our own ideals.
Well, you're about as old as one can get around here then aren't you? I din't even have a computer back then. Haven't got much of one now!
I'm here, thanks to Rathergate, via Swiftboat Veterans for Truth site. Changed my way of getting the news. Now, by the time the print news hits the stands, I already know many variations of the truth to dispel the printed lies.
The fact that Roberts remains polite and rational in spite of the dems attempts to misrepresent him is a testament to his qualifications. I don't necessarily want a conservative justice, just one who will adjudicate according to the Constitution. (It just happens that is who is considered conservative, one who will follow the law.)
That's a good size piece. ;)
I think the Kelo decision frightened me. What to do about this really bad decision? Individual states are already taking action to see that it will not happen in their states. So what do we need a Supreme Court for? I'd rather live in a state that honored my right to private property.
the idea in the first place was that the states did their own thing.
We still need a Supreme Court, but for some reason in the past 100 years, it has become THE power in the land.....