Roberts In The Crosshairs, Again
Judge John Roberts is in the crosshairs again as the rhetoric is ramped up against his impending succession of Justice O’Connor’s now vacant seat. Senator Patrick Leahy fired off his mouth yesterday. The excerpts below come from an AP story that appeared in the Arizona Republic.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, who will lead the Democratic questioning at John Roberts’ confirmation hearings, criticized the Supreme Court nominee Tuesday as an "eager, aggressive advocate" for the policies of the Republican far right wing.
One day after the release of 5,000 pages of Reagan-era records, the Vermont Democrat said in a statement that Roberts’ views are "among the most radical being offered by a cadre intent on reversing decades of policies on civil rights, voting rights, women’s rights, privacy, and access to justice."
Steve Schmidt, a White House spokesman, said Leahy’s comments reflected a Democratic strategy, predating Roberts’ nomination, of trying to depict Bush’s nominee as ideologically extreme.
"The ease with which Senator Leahy distorts Judge Roberts’ record is troubling and may indicate that the Democrats are not yet done trying to make that argument, although it has already been discredited."
In material released Monday, Roberts emerged as an attorney serving in the Reagan White House who held views generally in line with those of other conservatives. He was sympathetic to prayer in public schools, dismissive of "comparable worth," referred to the "tragedy of abortion," and took a swipe at the Supreme Court for being too willing to hear multiple appeals from death-row inmates.
Roberts is anything but radical. At least not to starboard side thinkers like myself. Our readers know that the Asylum, we are paying close attention to the process which Roberts is going through. And there is no wonder why the Left despises him. Not only do they dislike his views from a legal point-of-view, but they are launching positively scurrilous attacks against him from a personal standpoint.
The WaPo slammed his family. They dropped to the lowest common denominator by attacking how they were dressed during the press conference, and even took a swipe at his adorable son that tried to steal the spotlight from his father. NARAL and CNN joined forces to run an ad that depicted Roberts as being sympathetic, and almost supportive, of the bomber of an abortion clinic. Leahy is accusing Roberts of being "radical" and "extreme" in his views. Just a couple days ago, Roberts was slammed over his views regarding prayer in schools.
The Left has had so much control over the judiciary with a nudge-nudge, wink-wink approval of their activism that they are scared of what may happen should Roberts make it to the high court. O’Connor shocked court watchers like Thomas and I when she resigned from the bench. (At that time, everyone was running bets as to when Rehnquist was going to step down; Thomas even noted that Vegas was taking odds on it.) But Roberts is only the first step.
We know how the Left will implode when the next justice steps down. Everyone is speculating as to who will be next. It really does not matter. Thomas and Scalia are staying, and should Rehnquist decide that enough is enough, Pres. Bush will nominate another conservative jurist; one who believes in the rule of law, rather than the rule of activism. There is still the possibility that Pres. Bush may have at least two more justices that will step down before he is out of office. THAT is the prospect that drives the port-side of the ideological spectrum nuts. They know that their activist balance will be flushed right down the toilet.
And that is how it should be. Leahy complains that Roberts is going to roll back precedent. Justice Scalia once remarked that precedent should be rolled back if the precedent set was incorrect. To this day, there is not one person on the Left that can show Thomas or I where the phrase "separation of church and state" is within the Constitution. It is not in the Constitution, yet they claim that is what the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment meant. I beg to differ.
When the Framers wrote the Constitution, it was written in such clear language that there was no ambiguity within it. There still is no ambiguity. It means what it says. The interpretation of the Constitution within The Federalist Papers were done to persuade the States of the need for a Constitution. They explain, within the Papers, what things meant. They assured the States they would still have their rights, and that the federal government would bear no similarity to that of the Crown in England.
For a long time now, the courts–especially the high court–have been legislating from the bench, and the precedents they have set are dangerous. They have encroached on the States’ rights to make laws to govern their citizens. We saw it in Griswold, in Lawrence, and in Roe. In each of these cases, and in many others, the State law in question was immediately overturned by the high court, as opposed to remanding it back to the states, and allowing the people to decide the fate of the law.
For the case of Roe it is even more obvious. The Supreme Court caved into the pressure being exerted by many a special interest groups of the time, and usurped the power of 28 states that had made the act of abortion illegal. And this is why the Left is fighting tooth-and-nail to prevent a jurist like Roberts on the high court. Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, about his nomination focuses on what he might do–how he may rule–should Roe ever be revisited. Roe is their "holy" sacrament. They will fight to keep abortion intact.
But all of this stems from papers that he wrote as an attorney for the Reagan White House. And it galls me that all of those on the Left–especially those in Congress with their numerous legal degrees–seem to have forgotten that as a lawyer, you fight for your client. The Reagan White House was his client, therefore he represented them without an injection of his own personal beliefs. (Of course, that is speculation; only Roberts can answer that question.)
But make no mistake. The long knives are out, and both sides are now gearing up for battle. Thomas’ prediction that this may be smoother than people expected is barely holding on by a thread. Yes, the Democrats will not have the full support of the Gang of Fourteen, but I doubt any of the Democrats involved in that deal will go against their port-side brethren should a filibuster be mounted. Roberts will have a bumpy ride, and it is going to take everything on our side of the spectrum to refute the lies, the half-truths, and misnomers the Left will put out there against this finely qualified jurist.
The Bunny ;)
Judge John Roberts is in the crosshairs again as the rhetoric is ramped up against his impending succession of Justice O’Connor’s now vacant seat. Senator Patrick Leahy fired off his mouth yesterday. The excerpts below come from an AP story that appeared in the Arizona Republic.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, who will lead the Democratic questioning at John Roberts’ confirmation hearings, criticized the Supreme Court nominee Tuesday as an "eager, aggressive advocate" for the policies of the Republican far right wing.
One day after the release of 5,000 pages of Reagan-era records, the Vermont Democrat said in a statement that Roberts’ views are "among the most radical being offered by a cadre intent on reversing decades of policies on civil rights, voting rights, women’s rights, privacy, and access to justice."
Steve Schmidt, a White House spokesman, said Leahy’s comments reflected a Democratic strategy, predating Roberts’ nomination, of trying to depict Bush’s nominee as ideologically extreme.
"The ease with which Senator Leahy distorts Judge Roberts’ record is troubling and may indicate that the Democrats are not yet done trying to make that argument, although it has already been discredited."
In material released Monday, Roberts emerged as an attorney serving in the Reagan White House who held views generally in line with those of other conservatives. He was sympathetic to prayer in public schools, dismissive of "comparable worth," referred to the "tragedy of abortion," and took a swipe at the Supreme Court for being too willing to hear multiple appeals from death-row inmates.
Roberts is anything but radical. At least not to starboard side thinkers like myself. Our readers know that the Asylum, we are paying close attention to the process which Roberts is going through. And there is no wonder why the Left despises him. Not only do they dislike his views from a legal point-of-view, but they are launching positively scurrilous attacks against him from a personal standpoint.
The WaPo slammed his family. They dropped to the lowest common denominator by attacking how they were dressed during the press conference, and even took a swipe at his adorable son that tried to steal the spotlight from his father. NARAL and CNN joined forces to run an ad that depicted Roberts as being sympathetic, and almost supportive, of the bomber of an abortion clinic. Leahy is accusing Roberts of being "radical" and "extreme" in his views. Just a couple days ago, Roberts was slammed over his views regarding prayer in schools.
The Left has had so much control over the judiciary with a nudge-nudge, wink-wink approval of their activism that they are scared of what may happen should Roberts make it to the high court. O’Connor shocked court watchers like Thomas and I when she resigned from the bench. (At that time, everyone was running bets as to when Rehnquist was going to step down; Thomas even noted that Vegas was taking odds on it.) But Roberts is only the first step.
We know how the Left will implode when the next justice steps down. Everyone is speculating as to who will be next. It really does not matter. Thomas and Scalia are staying, and should Rehnquist decide that enough is enough, Pres. Bush will nominate another conservative jurist; one who believes in the rule of law, rather than the rule of activism. There is still the possibility that Pres. Bush may have at least two more justices that will step down before he is out of office. THAT is the prospect that drives the port-side of the ideological spectrum nuts. They know that their activist balance will be flushed right down the toilet.
And that is how it should be. Leahy complains that Roberts is going to roll back precedent. Justice Scalia once remarked that precedent should be rolled back if the precedent set was incorrect. To this day, there is not one person on the Left that can show Thomas or I where the phrase "separation of church and state" is within the Constitution. It is not in the Constitution, yet they claim that is what the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment meant. I beg to differ.
When the Framers wrote the Constitution, it was written in such clear language that there was no ambiguity within it. There still is no ambiguity. It means what it says. The interpretation of the Constitution within The Federalist Papers were done to persuade the States of the need for a Constitution. They explain, within the Papers, what things meant. They assured the States they would still have their rights, and that the federal government would bear no similarity to that of the Crown in England.
For a long time now, the courts–especially the high court–have been legislating from the bench, and the precedents they have set are dangerous. They have encroached on the States’ rights to make laws to govern their citizens. We saw it in Griswold, in Lawrence, and in Roe. In each of these cases, and in many others, the State law in question was immediately overturned by the high court, as opposed to remanding it back to the states, and allowing the people to decide the fate of the law.
For the case of Roe it is even more obvious. The Supreme Court caved into the pressure being exerted by many a special interest groups of the time, and usurped the power of 28 states that had made the act of abortion illegal. And this is why the Left is fighting tooth-and-nail to prevent a jurist like Roberts on the high court. Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, about his nomination focuses on what he might do–how he may rule–should Roe ever be revisited. Roe is their "holy" sacrament. They will fight to keep abortion intact.
But all of this stems from papers that he wrote as an attorney for the Reagan White House. And it galls me that all of those on the Left–especially those in Congress with their numerous legal degrees–seem to have forgotten that as a lawyer, you fight for your client. The Reagan White House was his client, therefore he represented them without an injection of his own personal beliefs. (Of course, that is speculation; only Roberts can answer that question.)
But make no mistake. The long knives are out, and both sides are now gearing up for battle. Thomas’ prediction that this may be smoother than people expected is barely holding on by a thread. Yes, the Democrats will not have the full support of the Gang of Fourteen, but I doubt any of the Democrats involved in that deal will go against their port-side brethren should a filibuster be mounted. Roberts will have a bumpy ride, and it is going to take everything on our side of the spectrum to refute the lies, the half-truths, and misnomers the Left will put out there against this finely qualified jurist.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 2:15 PM
1 Comments:
Bunny,
Brilliant discertation and dissection of the hell Roberts is about to endure. I agree that Publius was a bit on the optimistic side about this fight. However, in his defense, I must point out that at the time, no one of the Democrat side of the aisle were really saying or doing anything.
The key to the whole fight will be the Gang of 14. If a filibuster is mounted, a few of them, including the wobbly GOPers, have already stated--on tecord--that they will not only endorse the use of the Constitutional Option, but stand behind Frist completely as the trigger is pulled.
Mistress Pundit
Post a Comment
<< Home