Roberts Subverted Reagan (Backstabbing Establishment Republican No Friend Of Conservatives Alert)

That carefully crafted political blank slate of Judge John Roberts is getting filled in piece of by piece.

And what it reveals is an ugly portrait of a backstabbing establishment Republican who subverted the political will of the greatest American president of the 20th century.

Memos drafted by the Supreme Court nominee during his tenure in President Reagan's Justice Department show a distinct hostility to the conservative ideals embraced by his boss and to some of the individuals who championed those ideals.

Take, for instance, a Dec. 14, 1981, memo, obtained by the Washington Times, and written to his colleague, Kenneth Starr, another country-club Republican, who would later bamboozle President Reagan into nominating Sandra Day O'Connor as a Supreme Court justice.

The topic was a book called, "A Blueprint for Judicial Reform," produced by Paul Weyrich's Free Congress Foundation. The American Bar Association, no friend of the Reagan administration, was quizzing new Attorney General William French Smith about the ideas in the book.

Roberts let his hair down and revealed just what kind of a snake he truly is in this memo he probably thought would remain forever a private communication.

"I suggest we keep as low a profile on this as possible," he wrote to his co-conspirator Starr. "Weyerich [sic] is of course no friend of ours, but it won't help to stir up the influential contributors to this volume, and any comment by the AG will simply highlight the fact that we have yet to take a position" on some of the issues raised by the book.

Weyrich is one of the shining intellectual lights of the modern conservative movement.

You can like him. You can dislike him. But he's a true believer and closely represented the will and ideals of Ronald Reagan, the man sitting in the White House – the man Roberts was ultimately supposed to be serving.

I've seen this kind of weasel all too often skulking around the corridors of our nation's capital – undermining visionary leaders like Reagan, betraying the people who elected them to office, promoting their own personal political agendas.

Roberts is the kind of Beltway creature I most detest. He's not man enough to stand up and tell you what he really believes. He doesn't want to be accountable for defending his positions publicly. So he conspires in the dark behind closed doors and writes memos attacking righteous men who have the courage to operate in the light.

The fact that Roberts twice misspelled Weyrich's name also suggests just how out of touch he was with conservative thought. All conservatives knew Weyrich in 1981. He was seen as one of the architects of the Reagan landslide victory and part of the conservative brain trust that would set the nation on a new political course.

Remember, this is the guy who can't remember if he ever joined the Federalist Society. He's pathological.

Now, I don't consider myself a conservative, but I do consider myself a friend to many conservatives. And my advice to those friends is to recognize right now that John Roberts is the enemy. One of my beefs with conservatives is they never seem to see it coming. They didn't recognize what Ken Starr was and is. And they still don't see the handwriting on the wall with John Roberts.

Roberts was an insider then defending the indefensible policies of the permanent bureaucracy of the Justice Department that was out to thwart Reagan initiatives.

He's a backroom "fixer," and he's just been rewarded for his underhanded wheeler-dealing with a lifetime nomination to the Supreme Court – and he will not be denied, not by the fat-cat Republicans who dominate the U.S. Senate.

In another memo to French in 1982, Roberts showed he understood how easy it was to win over conservatives with a simple phrase – a gimmick now employed with great success by President Bush.

When preparing the attorney general for an interview with the editor of the Conservative Digest, he suggested dropping the phrase "judicial restraint." That would do the trick.

Hey, isn't that the very same phrase that Bush used in announcing his nominee to the world?

http://www.freecongress.org/commentaries/2005/050728.asp

Nominating Judge John G. Roberts, Jr.

By Paul M. Weyrich
July 28, 2005

When I had lunch with Kent R. Hance of Texas, one of the most humorous men ever to have served in the Congress, we discussed President Bush’s then prospective nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. “First I’d ask,” said Hance, “does the nominee live with his mother. Then I’d want to know if he carries a bag lunch to work. And finally I’d ask if the nominee had a television set in his house.”

Hance, of course, was referring to what we knew about David Hackett Souter when he was nominated by President George Herbert Walker Bush. Souter had seemed conservative because he had represented the administrations of New Hampshire Governors Meldrim Thompson and John H. Sununu. Thompson arguably was the most conservative Governor ever to have served in modern times. Sununu was a moderate conservative. Both Governors highly praised Souter.

It is true that we don’t know many things about Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., which some folks on both the Left and the Right would like to know. We do know this: He is married. He has two adopted children whom he loves very much. He is an actively practicing Roman Catholic. He is not a member of the Federalist Society. Some of the opinions he has rendered in his two years on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia have made Liberals unhappy.

John Roberts and any other judge the President appoints to the Supreme Court will be his legacy. If one thinks about it, everything a President does can be undone by legislation or executive order except for judicial appointments. President Bush’s judicial appointments have been better than his father’s appointments and better than President Ronald W. Reagan’s appointments.

The White House understood that Bush’s coalition hinged on this nomination. But for the excellent judges the President has nominated, especially to the U.S. Courts of Appeals, where the majority of challenging court cases are adjudicated, his coalition would have been disbanded over immigration or spending or the War in Iraq. Most Conservatives continued to support the President because they trusted him, based on his record, to appoint the right kind of person. That person must get confirmed.

I do not know Judge Roberts. I do know many people who do. These are people who, in some cases, have devoted their lives to pro-family causes. They are thrilled with the President’s choice. Now an issue is being raised by the opposition because Mrs. Roberts was once President of Feminists for Life. So? Liberals have spent a generation telling women that men don’t matter, that women are individuals, that marriages mean nothing because women are entitled to their independence.

Having advocated that point of view can Liberals credibly argue that Mrs. Roberts’ actions reflect her husband’s point of view? That won’t matter to Liberal Media, which is looking hard for anything with which to sink this nomination. Why? Because Liberals hate George W. Bush with a passion. They believe he has tricked them with this nominee. They were prepared for various other candidates to be nominated but not for Judge Roberts. Liberals have raised millions of dollars to fight this nominee. And fight they will. Much of the Democratic Party is beholden to MoveOn.org and groups such as People for the American Way, and they will use anything to try to bring this fellow down.

I was involved in the Conservative Movement when President Reagan nominated Judge Robert H. Bork to the U.S. Supreme Court before Congress adjourned for the August recess in 1987. By Labor Day, Bork was a dead letter. The Left and more than 500 groups and entities, such as city councils and state legislatures, weighed in.

I recently advised the White House to withhold Roberts’ nomination until the end of August so the same thing won't happen. That advice was not taken. I hope and pray that what happened to Bork doesn’t happen to Roberts.

Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York already has given Judge Roberts a list of questions he knows that Roberts will not answer. When Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed during the Clinton Administration she was not required to answer similar questions. Why should Roberts be required to do so? Republicans knew where Judge Ginsburg stood by virtue of her service at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). They did not force the issue. They did not threaten a filibuster because she refused to answer questions.

Some Liberals have hinted that a filibuster might occur if questions such as Schumer’s go unanswered and if the Administration refuses to turn over memos Roberts wrote while an attorney at the Justice Department. The Administration correctly would refuse to turn over those memos. The attorney-client privilege is well established and essential.

The Gang of 14 has indicated that there is no justification for a filibuster. That group of seven Republicans and seven Democrats who broke with their party leadership said it has put the filibuster tiger back in its cage. We shall see. Left-wing groups are well-funded and the Left-wing Media will echo what these groups say. Both will pressure the seven Republicans to agree to a filibuster. Some of the seven Republicans could fold. Who knows? Some of these Republicans can’t be counted on in this fight (particularly Senators Lincoln D. Chaffee, Rhode Island, and Olympia J. Snowe, Maine). So the issue of whether Judge Roberts would have a smooth confirmation is unsettled.

While Liberals may not be able to mount a filibuster they could delay Roberts’ confirmation. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has agreed to serve until her successor is confirmed. Several controversial cases are pending before the Supreme Court. Liberals might be happier to have Justice O’Connor rule on them rather than the lesser-known Judge Roberts.

Virtually every pro-family and conservative group with which I am familiar has proclaimed that President Bush kept his promise by nominating Judge Roberts. President Bush promised to appoint what Conservatives formerly called a “strict constructionist” and it appears he did. The President has carefully kept the Coalition together because his judicial appointments affect everyone.

If Judge Roberts is confirmed as an Associate Justice, and if he votes with other Republican-appointed Justices, such as John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and (occasionally) Anthony M. Kennedy the Conservative Coalition could come apart. Surely the President had that in mind when he made this somewhat surprising appointment.

Paul M. Weyrich is the Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.

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.