Skip to comments.SOUTER IN ROBERTS' CLOTHING
Posted on 06/28/2012 1:58:50 PM PDT by Lacey
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 Flynt'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 "womenfolk"?
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 we're 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, let's 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, he'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 10!
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 Ginsburg to lifetime tenure 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.
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 that 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.
as a tax the law can be repealed using reconciliation.
Wow. Talk about a crystal ball...
This was the same guy who voted to uphold the 2nd amendment on a number of cases. It boggles the mind, this decision.
I think he became ‘belt-wayed’. The parties with the liberal washington in crowd. The brain washed spouse. And the promise of peace at home.
I hate DC
I miss Harriet Miers
All of which they consider sacraments
Thanks for posting. People need the reminder.
Wonder how it feels to be John Roberts? Maybe when he's older, he'll be shocked by the damage he did to the country by giving it the big shove over the edge towards totalitarian control.
Or maybe he'll just laugh at the fools who didn't realize that's who he was.
Yeah, I thought Roberts was a conservative, but then I thought Ann was one too.
Ann is wrong.
Ultimately, the decision keeps a stupid law in the political arena. The court’s job isn’t to overrule stupidity.
... It limits the gov’ts power under the commerce clause
... The gov’t already had the power to tax anything it wanted
... It frees the states to NOT participate in Obamacare without being penalized. This is a states rights issue.
In the short run, not good. In the long run, good.
Demoncrats said it wasn’t a tax, but a penalty. The court recognized it as a tax.
Political battles will be fought now about how much we want to pay in taxes.
Taxes can be revoked. This one will.
All told, not what I wanted in the short run, but is a good thing in the long run.
I suspect Roberts changed sides and wrote the opinion to limit federal power.
I have believed for several years that Souter was a stealth nominee chosen by GHWB: a stealth liberal nominee.
I sure didn't know anything about Roberts when he was nominated. Maybe father and son gave us one conservative and one stealth liberal, by design.
Either could have found two proven conservatives to nominate with little effort. My opinion of the Bushes continues to evolve, or devolve.
Roberts is a Statist, ‘Rat girly man.
I think he’s being BLACKMAILED! His two ADOPTED children are fom Ireland VIA LATIN AMERICA!! LATIN AMERICA??? WHY did they come thru Latin America??? Is the adoption legal??? hmmmmmmm.
Ann go back to dating Bill Maher and leave the important ideas to conservative’s, you no longer matter, get over your self.
She dated Bill Maher?
I miss Harriet Miers.
Ann's conservative bona fides have been in some question [justifiably] for her unwavering support of Romney in the primaries, but she sure called this one. Had I read it when Roberts was nominated, I'd have probably thought her opinion overwrought and incorrect.
She ain't dumb.
Thank you for your contribution to the conversation. Your insights spoke right to the heart of the substance of the article. I consider myself lucky to be on the same board as such deep thinkers as yourself.
Ann warned us. She, Alan Keyes, Howard Phillips, and most of us here were right.
Congress has the power to limit the Federal government’s jurisdiction. Can we pass a law defining the taxing power in such a way that Obamacare doesn’t qualify?
BTW, the Constitution only empowers the Federal government to collect certain types of taxes. Obamacare isn’t any of those types. So even if Roberts is right (which he isn’t), he’s still wrong.
Earl Warren, William Brennan, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, David Souter, John Roberts — the kind of Constitutionally deficient, totally integrity-free judges RINO Presidents ALWAYS give us — you know, RINOs like Nixon, the Bushes, and Governor Etch-a-Sketch, the godfather of Obamacare, whose advisors helped write it.
You’re wrong and Ann is right. There is no limit on Federal power under this decision.
The court’s job isn’t to overrule stupidity, but it is to overrule blatant violations of the United States Constitution, which they know full well this is. These people have no regard for our country or our Constitution.
A dangerous precedent was set here. Now, the government can run any part of our lives it wishes, as long as it argues that it’s just taxing us. That’s dangerous.
There are those of us here on FR who no longer give Ann the time of day. I no longer find anything she says to be funny. She is always behind the curve, and she is a liberal to boot.
I simply disagree with your take.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
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.