Posted on 07/20/2005 7:33:31 AM PDT by Babu
After pretending to consider various women and minorities for the Supreme Court these past few weeks, President Bush decided to disappoint all the groups he had just ginned up and nominate a white male.
So all we know about him for sure is that he can't dance and he probably doesn't know who Jay-Z is. Other than that, he is a blank slate. Tabula rasa. Big zippo. Nada. Oh, yeah...we also know he's argued cases before the supreme court. big deal; so has Larry fFynt's attorney.
But unfortunately, other than that that, we don’t know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever.
Since the announcement, court-watchers have been like the old Kremlinologists from Soviet days looking for clues as to what kind of justice Roberts will be. Will he let us vote?
Does he live in a small, rough-hewn cabin in the woods of New Hampshire and avoid "women folk"?
Does he trust democracy? Or will he make all the important decisions for us and call them “constitutional rights.”
It means absolutely nothing that NARAL and Planned Parenthood attack him: They also attacked Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Hackett Souter.
The only way a supreme court nominee could win the approval of NARAL and Planned Parenthood would be to actually perform an abortion during his confirmation hearing, live, on camera, and preferably a partial birth one.
It means nothing that Roberts wrote briefs arguing for the repeal of Roe v. Wade when he worked for Republican administrations. He was arguing on behalf of his client, the United States of America. Roberts has specifically disassociated himself from those cases, dropping a footnote to a 1994 law review article that said:
“In the interest of full disclosure, the author would like to point out that as Deputy Solicitor General for a portion of the 1992-93 Term, he was involved in many of the cases discussed below. In the interest of even fuller disclosure, he would also like to point out that his views as a commentator on those cases do not necessarily reflect his views as an advocate for his former client, the United States.”
This would have been the legal equivalent, after O.J.'s acquittal, of Johnnie Cochran saying, "hey, I never said the guy was innocent. I was just doing my job."
And it makes no difference that conservatives in the White House are assuring us Roberts can be trusted. We got the exact same assurances from officials working for the last president Bush about David Hackett Souter.
I believe their exact words were, "Read our lips; Souter's a reliable conservative."
From the theater of the absurd category, the Republican National Committee’s “talking points” on Roberts provide this little tidbit:
“In the 1995 case of Barry v. Little, Judge Roberts argued—free of charge—before the D.C. Court of Appeals on behalf of a class of the neediest welfare recipients, challenging a termination of benefits under the District’s Public Assistance Act of 1982.”
I'm glad to hear the man has a steady work record, but how did this make it to the top of his resume?
Bill Clinton goes around bragging that he passed welfare reform, which was, admittedly, the one public policy success of his entire administration (passed by the Republican Congress). But now apparently Republicans want to pretend the Party of welfare queens! Soon the RNC will be boasting that Republicans want to raise your taxes and surrender in the war on terrorism too.
Finally, lets ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That’s just unnatural.
By contrast, I held out for three months, tops, before dropping my first rhetorical bombshell, which I think was about Goldwater.
It’s especially unnatural for someone who is smart and there’s no question but that Roberts is smart.
If a smart and accomplished person goes this long without expressing an opinion, they'd better be pursuing the Miss America title.
Apparently, Roberts decided early on that he wanted to be on the Supreme Court and that the way to do that was not to express a personal opinion on anything to anybody ever. It’s as if he is from some space alien sleeper cell. Maybe the space aliens are trying to help us, but I wish we knew that.
If the Senate were in Democrat hands, Roberts would be perfect. But why on earth would Bush waste a nomination on a person who is a complete blank slate when we have a majority in the Senate!
We also have a majority in the House, state legislatures, state governorships, and have won five of the last seven presidential elections — seven of the last ten!
We're the Harlem Globetrotters now - why do we have to play the Washington Generals every week?
Conservatism is sweeping the nation, we have a fully functioning alternative media, we’re ticked off and ready to avenge Robert Bork . . . and Bush nominates a Rorschach blot.
Even as they are losing voters, Democrats don’t hesitate to nominate reliable left-wing lunatics like Ruth Bader Ginsberg to lifetime sinecures on the High Court. And the vast majority of Americans loathe her views.
As I’ve said before, if a majority of Americans agreed with liberals on abortion, gay marriage, pornography, criminals’ rights, and property rights –liberals wouldn’t need the Supreme Court to give them everything they want through invented “constitutional” rights invisible to everyone but People For the American Way. It’s always good to remind voters that Democrats are the party of abortion, sodomy, and atheism and nothing presents an opportunity to do so like a Supreme Court nomination.
During the “filibuster” fracas, one lonely voice in the woods admonished Republicans: “Of your six minutes on TV, use 30 seconds to point out the Democrats are abusing the filibuster and the other 5 1/2 minutes to ask liberals to explain why they think Bush's judicial nominees are ‘extreme.’" Republicans ignored this advice, spent the next several weeks arguing about the history of the filibuster, and lost the fight.
Now we come to find out from last Sunday’s New York Times — the enemy’s own playbook! — that the Democrats actually took polls and determined that they could not defeat Bush’s conservative judicial nominees on ideological grounds. They could win majority support only if they argued turgid procedural points.
That’s why the entire nation had to be bored to death with arguments about the filibuster earlier this year.
The Democrats’ own polls showed voters are no longer fooled by claims that the Democrats are trying to block “judges who would roll back civil rights.” Borking is over.
And Bush responds by nominating a candidate who will allow Democrats to avoid fighting on their weakest ground – substance. He has given us a Supreme Court nomination that will placate no liberals and should please no conservatives.
Maybe Roberts will contravene the sordid history of “stealth nominees” and be the Scalia or Thomas Bush promised us when he was asking for our votes. Or maybe he won’t. The Supreme Court shouldn't be a game of Russian roulette.
LOL.........doesn't she look a little like Leslie Nielsen (younger years) in drag?
That is a good point.
However, if the term has been that corrupted it would be a good idea to drop it.
Many of us would be called 'liberals' in the 19th century but we would not call ourselves that now since we know how the term has been corrupted.
"Sometimes its smart to take a word and twist it to mean something other than what it was meant orginally. It's what liberals did to liberalism."
It's also what the homosexuals did to the word "gay".
first 50...
>
> Not exactly the picture of health, is she. Needs more meat
> on those bones IMO.
>
>
> Maybe she should eat something, and then comment.
>
>
> Holy Crow! She DOES have an Adam's Apple!
>
...obviously we can't treat someone who has serious medical conditions in dignified manner (/sarcasm)
like i said "childish"
"So you're saying she's FOR a "Souter" (see title)?"
"Souter in Roberts' Clothing"
The headline is accurate, but it's certainly not applied to demonstrate that Roberts is a Souter as far as a liberal puke. She's certainly against a 'Souter,' but when I say "I don't think her intent was to argue against Roberts," I mean she's not arguing against Roberts personally. She doesn't say he's scum or some liberal that shouldn't ever be nominated. She's saying that he's a nominee with a Souter-like lack of conservative ideological credentials. That title has nothing to do with Roberts' personal ideals--it has everything to do with Roberts being Souter inasmuch as he is also a "stealth nominee". And she fairly denigrates Roberts' nomination on the principle that Bush has the Senate votes and the conservative judges, and the conservative base waiting, so it makes no sense to pick a non-paper-trailed-Souter-style stealth nominee now. And I do look forward to any quotes from her article that differ with that interpretation.
There was nothing erroneous about either of my comments.
And you said, "If it's fair game to say that her article is correct, that she looks great and that here is a picture of her, then why isn't also fair game by people who don't think her article is correct and who think that she's too skinny to say so?"
That certainly sounds like you're excusing them to me. The only time personal insults are appropriate are responding in kind.
"Nearly 800 posts, and Ms. Coulter's opposition almost never stops going after the woman as a chicken-legged drunkard who never loved Bush to begin with."
Your irrelevant aside on Hillary's legs notwithstanding, my sureness in my comments is only reinforced by your statements above, where you demonstrate that while you might not have agreed in your posts with those who denigrated her person, you certainly agreed with them in spirit. You certainly haven't disagreed with them by supporting them, unless there's some logic trick I missed where you wave a wand and doing A=doing B.
We could've gotten another Thomas, now it's all about settling for nominees who seem like they'll get through.
And all the hard work we did for a Republican majority was for....
I am confident you will be pleasantly surprised by Roberts. He may not be a Scalia or Thomas, but he will be a Rehnquist or better. A huge improvement over O'Connor. Bush will come back with an ultra-conservative on the Rehnquist replacement where the democrats can't make the case Bush is altering the balance of the court.
That wasn't her point. Coulter's point was Bush should have nominated someone with definite conservative principles with evidence of court rulings. I however think Coulter vastly underestimates Roberts background as an extranordinary conservative. Just because it is not written in concrete in judicial opinions, doesn't mean it is not there. Ann did not do her homework.
Wouldn't THAT be great!
The check is in the mail. ;-)
:-)
The chief justice is also paid some $10,000 per year more than the associate justices on the grounds that he has more administrative duties. The chief justice, Speaker, and vice president are all paid approximatley $202,000. The Senate majority leader is also paid more than regular senators but well over $20,000 less than the chief justice, Speaker, and vice president.
You're right. You have heard the adage about the professor asked whether he taught that the earth was flat or that the earth was round, and he replied that he could teach it either way the administration wanted. So it be with the lawyers!
It's because of advice like this that I'll never be asked to be a presidential advisor.
:-(
Yes, I think that the pressure will be put on him to appoint a more solid conservative candidate for SC in the future. I think Roberts was a good choice, but let's face it ALL of us wanted someone like JANICE ROGERS BROWN. Are we comfortable with EDITH BROWN CLEMENT?
We are not disagreeing yet.. :-)
nick
Laurence Tribe, a liberal professor of constitutional law at Harvard, remembers Roberts as a student there and has kept in touch with him over the years. He does not recall Roberts as a political conservative.
"He's conservative in manner and conservative in approach," Tribe said. "He's a person who is cautious and careful, that's true. But he is also someone quite deeply immersed in the law, and he loves it. He believes in it as a discipline and pursues it in principle and not by way of politics."
No, I think Roberts is possibly better than Edith Brown Clement, but if I had to choose an Edith, it would have been Edith Hollans Jones.
I've long since stopped referring to myself as a classic liberal. Nobody knows what that is. And the word liberal immediately raises questions in the minds of small government conservatives (although I'm beginning to believe small government conservatives don't really exist)
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.