May I Take The Diva On?
Thomas posted that Ann Coulter seems to have a beef with Judge Roberts. Whereas I would usually defer to her, this time I cannot. I would like permission to take her on; head on, because I know I am about to raise the ire of a few people over this. She is popular. She is intelligent. And I honestly think she is way off base on this.
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.
First off, the president never said he was nominating a woman. The Left has stated that. His wife has stated that. But President Bush has never uttered that. He stated—clearly and concisely—that he would appoint those to the bench that would interpret the law, not legislate from the bench. Since being on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Roberts has done precisely that.
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.
I took Ann for someone who did a bit of research prior to speaking. I guess this is not the case for Roberts. From the research we have built up for him, Judge Roberts is anything but a stealth candidate. He is a nominee that has little for the Left to draw on. His decisions, thus far, have been on the money when it comes to doing his job as a jurist, which is interpreting the law.
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.
This point I will concede. She is correct in that these people were attacked by the Left, but their liberal tendencies were apparent from their first days on the bench. That was more than apparent for O’Connor in Arizona, and to boot, she was an AZ. State Legislature prior to her stint on the court, so she was already one that was looking for compromise. Such is not the same for Roberts. He has always been a lawyer.
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."
Again, true, but I will hold him to what he said in regard to Roe: There was "no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution" to support it. That is sound legal reasoning, and further, it is one that is correct. That is the same holding I hope he will maintain should Roe ever be revisited.
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.
The elder Bush obviously did not do his homework. As we have seen with his son, he is far more apt to be patient. And to correct Ms. Coulter, it was not the elder Bush that screwed up, it was Reagan, who appointed Souter. Souter replaced Brennan, who retired in 1990. But Souter was already in the works. Reagan appointed him, nit Bush. This is a point that has been made by people like David Limbaugh—a noted columnist and lawyer, and Mark Levin, likewise.
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."
Despite my distaste of the welfare system, I have to argue on his behalf. He was correct. The termination of the clients’ welfare was inappropriate in the eyes of the law.
I'm glad to hear the man has a steady work record, but how did this make it to the top of his resume?
I am sorry, I considered the top of his resume to include the special counsel to the DoJ that has, his appointment to the DC Court in which he handed the administration a key legal victory in Hamdan, and the fact that this man is probably one of the best jurists this nation has to offer.
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.
No offense, but that is a low blow from someone that I am afraid I am beginning to dislike. We do not surrender. Roberts is a good choice, and it is a "consensus" nominee the Democrats do not like. That is why we had Kennedy, Boxer, Schumer, et al, attacking him today. Not even 24 hours had gone by before the extreme Left let loose. Howard Dean even accused the administration of doing this to get the MSM off of the supposed Rove Scandal; a scandal I am still awaiting proof of, I might add.
Finally, lets ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That’s just unnatural.
Not controversial? Practically every LW nutjob group or person has been hyping his comments over Roe. One would think that he stated to kill the infidels or something. This man’s controversy lies in where he was prior to this nomination, which the primary issue is Roe, as far as I can tell. Beyond that, I am sure the Left will bring up his decision in Hamdan because terrorists are supposed to be people, too, and allowed access to our courts.
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.
Neither of which seem to be a prerequisite for the Miss America title, as none of the winners of recent memory have either. At least either of those of note. None of them have won 25 out of 39 cases before the Supreme Court. None of them have had a successful private law practice. None of them have clerked for Chief Justice Rehnquist. Do I detect a level of envy here from her, or is it my imagination?
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!
For the last time, the man does not have a "blank slate." I will reserve my shots. This is not the time to be taking them over someone who would throw her bestsellers in my face, and her law degree (which I do not have, as yet), yet fails to have any further credentials than that.
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!
I am sure there is a point in that last statement, though i fail to grasp it. She is not telling anyone anything they do not already know.
We're the Harlem Globetrotters now - why do we have to play the Washington Generals every week?
Because the Globetrotters did, and we still have to contend with the Democrats, day in and day out, regardless of who we would prefer to deal with. They are there. We are here. Draw a line, and quit whining already. Besides, they are fun to slap around.
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.
I fail, again, to see the point. I did not think this was about "avenging" anyone. This is about—to teach a lesson to the lawyer—appointing the qualified person to serve. Pres. Bush feels that this man is qualified. We have done the research to show that, indeed, he is so. So, where does Judge Bork come in on this debate? I believe Ms. Coulter might have been in the trenches too long. This is not about payback, or revenge. If she desires that, I suggest she indulge in Mr. Lucas’ new piece of tripe. We, at the Asylum, will stay rooted in reality.
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.
We do loathe her views, but we play by the rules, much to our detriment, at times.
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.
WE did not lose the fight. We were stabbed in the back by members of our own party, and lacked a leader with a spine to stop them. To the Left, our nominees will always be extreme. They do not play by the rules. What does she want from us, for us to spank Ted Kennedy and send him to bed without a drink?
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.
I hate to break this news to her, but that is precisely what the extreme Left is doing. They are pulling out the ideological playbook, and they are going to try and oppose him that way. They are about to find out that is a losing strategy, as the Seditious Seven pointed out over the last 24 hours. They support the man, and as long as the do, the Left has no leg to stand on.
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.
Provided the man sticks to his conservative, originalist guns, as he has done thus far, he will please me. And he will please the rest of the country.
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.
Russian roulette is letting Teddy Kennedy drive you home after a night of happy hours on roads that have bridges.
Roberts is not the "stealth nominee" Ms. Coulter fears, and her fear-mongering is not welcome. This fight will be long and arduous enough without our side fraying at the edges by those on the extreme side.
The Bunny ;)
Thomas posted that Ann Coulter seems to have a beef with Judge Roberts. Whereas I would usually defer to her, this time I cannot. I would like permission to take her on; head on, because I know I am about to raise the ire of a few people over this. She is popular. She is intelligent. And I honestly think she is way off base on this.
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.
First off, the president never said he was nominating a woman. The Left has stated that. His wife has stated that. But President Bush has never uttered that. He stated—clearly and concisely—that he would appoint those to the bench that would interpret the law, not legislate from the bench. Since being on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Roberts has done precisely that.
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.
I took Ann for someone who did a bit of research prior to speaking. I guess this is not the case for Roberts. From the research we have built up for him, Judge Roberts is anything but a stealth candidate. He is a nominee that has little for the Left to draw on. His decisions, thus far, have been on the money when it comes to doing his job as a jurist, which is interpreting the law.
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.
This point I will concede. She is correct in that these people were attacked by the Left, but their liberal tendencies were apparent from their first days on the bench. That was more than apparent for O’Connor in Arizona, and to boot, she was an AZ. State Legislature prior to her stint on the court, so she was already one that was looking for compromise. Such is not the same for Roberts. He has always been a lawyer.
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."
Again, true, but I will hold him to what he said in regard to Roe: There was "no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution" to support it. That is sound legal reasoning, and further, it is one that is correct. That is the same holding I hope he will maintain should Roe ever be revisited.
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.
The elder Bush obviously did not do his homework. As we have seen with his son, he is far more apt to be patient. And to correct Ms. Coulter, it was not the elder Bush that screwed up, it was Reagan, who appointed Souter. Souter replaced Brennan, who retired in 1990. But Souter was already in the works. Reagan appointed him, nit Bush. This is a point that has been made by people like David Limbaugh—a noted columnist and lawyer, and Mark Levin, likewise.
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."
Despite my distaste of the welfare system, I have to argue on his behalf. He was correct. The termination of the clients’ welfare was inappropriate in the eyes of the law.
I'm glad to hear the man has a steady work record, but how did this make it to the top of his resume?
I am sorry, I considered the top of his resume to include the special counsel to the DoJ that has, his appointment to the DC Court in which he handed the administration a key legal victory in Hamdan, and the fact that this man is probably one of the best jurists this nation has to offer.
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.
No offense, but that is a low blow from someone that I am afraid I am beginning to dislike. We do not surrender. Roberts is a good choice, and it is a "consensus" nominee the Democrats do not like. That is why we had Kennedy, Boxer, Schumer, et al, attacking him today. Not even 24 hours had gone by before the extreme Left let loose. Howard Dean even accused the administration of doing this to get the MSM off of the supposed Rove Scandal; a scandal I am still awaiting proof of, I might add.
Finally, lets ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That’s just unnatural.
Not controversial? Practically every LW nutjob group or person has been hyping his comments over Roe. One would think that he stated to kill the infidels or something. This man’s controversy lies in where he was prior to this nomination, which the primary issue is Roe, as far as I can tell. Beyond that, I am sure the Left will bring up his decision in Hamdan because terrorists are supposed to be people, too, and allowed access to our courts.
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.
Neither of which seem to be a prerequisite for the Miss America title, as none of the winners of recent memory have either. At least either of those of note. None of them have won 25 out of 39 cases before the Supreme Court. None of them have had a successful private law practice. None of them have clerked for Chief Justice Rehnquist. Do I detect a level of envy here from her, or is it my imagination?
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!
For the last time, the man does not have a "blank slate." I will reserve my shots. This is not the time to be taking them over someone who would throw her bestsellers in my face, and her law degree (which I do not have, as yet), yet fails to have any further credentials than that.
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!
I am sure there is a point in that last statement, though i fail to grasp it. She is not telling anyone anything they do not already know.
We're the Harlem Globetrotters now - why do we have to play the Washington Generals every week?
Because the Globetrotters did, and we still have to contend with the Democrats, day in and day out, regardless of who we would prefer to deal with. They are there. We are here. Draw a line, and quit whining already. Besides, they are fun to slap around.
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.
I fail, again, to see the point. I did not think this was about "avenging" anyone. This is about—to teach a lesson to the lawyer—appointing the qualified person to serve. Pres. Bush feels that this man is qualified. We have done the research to show that, indeed, he is so. So, where does Judge Bork come in on this debate? I believe Ms. Coulter might have been in the trenches too long. This is not about payback, or revenge. If she desires that, I suggest she indulge in Mr. Lucas’ new piece of tripe. We, at the Asylum, will stay rooted in reality.
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.
We do loathe her views, but we play by the rules, much to our detriment, at times.
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.
WE did not lose the fight. We were stabbed in the back by members of our own party, and lacked a leader with a spine to stop them. To the Left, our nominees will always be extreme. They do not play by the rules. What does she want from us, for us to spank Ted Kennedy and send him to bed without a drink?
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.
I hate to break this news to her, but that is precisely what the extreme Left is doing. They are pulling out the ideological playbook, and they are going to try and oppose him that way. They are about to find out that is a losing strategy, as the Seditious Seven pointed out over the last 24 hours. They support the man, and as long as the do, the Left has no leg to stand on.
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.
Provided the man sticks to his conservative, originalist guns, as he has done thus far, he will please me. And he will please the rest of the country.
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.
Russian roulette is letting Teddy Kennedy drive you home after a night of happy hours on roads that have bridges.
Roberts is not the "stealth nominee" Ms. Coulter fears, and her fear-mongering is not welcome. This fight will be long and arduous enough without our side fraying at the edges by those on the extreme side.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 9:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home