98 Comments

1. David Thomson:

Iím still betting that Hugh Hewitt knows what heís talking about. Will he turn out to be another Warren Rudman? Weíll know soon enough. This nomination will easily be approved. If Hewitt is a false prophet—I can always give him hell on his call-in radio program.

Jul 20, 2005 - 8:46 am 2. KarmiCommunist:

“(Triangulation, anyone?)”

Interesting take…best i’ve seen on the Internet so far.

Jul 20, 2005 - 9:17 am 3. David Thomson:

What a difference a day makes. The nomination process has replaced the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame nonsense as the number one news focus. The MSM were looking for a convenient excuse to put the ìscandalî behind them. They had recently humiliated themselves over Tom DeLay, and their unjust attacks on Karl Rove were also not going to be successful.

Jul 20, 2005 - 9:42 am 4. Pat Curley:

Misdirection, perhaps. Unfortunately Drudge has crashed Ann’s site so we can’t read her take. I do agree though, it probably helps.

Jul 20, 2005 - 9:56 am 5. Matt in Tampa:

Ah-ha, apparently Ms. Coulter is a player in Rove’s latest Machievellian plot.

Jul 20, 2005 - 9:57 am 6. ed:

Hmmmm.

Frankly I’m with Coulter. We don’t know anything about this guy. Nothing. Nada. Even Bush didn’t ask him any questions on his views during the interview. And Bush is talking that up like it was a freaking bonus or something.

Here’s the problem. Roberts hasn’t been a judge for very long. Instead he’s represented other people’s views, which he has explicitly distanced himself from. I.e. the past 20-30 years of Roberts career has been arguing cases with which he may, or may not, disagree.

And, as a conservative, I’m supposed to be pleased by this? I’m supposed to be happy? Conservatives have been working for 25+ years, and donated untold billions of dollars to the GOP, to achieve this?

What the hell is the point of a Senate majority then?

Screw it. I’ve left the Republican party, they can go to hell for all I care.

Jul 20, 2005 - 10:29 am 7. flenser:

ed

That was you Glenn Renyolds was quoting, right?

Jul 20, 2005 - 10:38 am 8. JK Ribera:

“Screw it. I’ve left the Republican party, they can go to hell for all I care.”

Is that poster serious or was it a parody? Sounds like the latter to me.

Jul 20, 2005 - 10:38 am 9. markus:

Ryan Lizza has a good article at The New Republic saying the pick was made by a chastened, rather than a cocky, President. Similar to his stem-cell decision of August 2001, which was also made at a point when the President had a high disapproval rating. Lizza says it is likely that the Democrats unified opposition to the President’s agenda, their willingness to “make life difficult” for him, that has forced Bush into the more concilliatory pick.

I’d agree.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w050718&s=lizza072005

Jul 20, 2005 - 11:12 am 10. someone:

Coulter’s pulling, I think, a reverse Moby.

Ed is just confused.

Jul 20, 2005 - 11:13 am 11. someone:

markus: Lizza is (again) being suckered by W. Picking Roberts — esp. after the hilarious rumor chase he led everyone on since Monday — is a sign not that he’s let up but that he’s playing the long-term game, to win.

Three-plus picks, three real conservatives. This is for all the marbles. Of course, it’s easier if the opposition is reading Bush as weak (again).

Jul 20, 2005 - 11:21 am 12. flenser:

The underlying argument here is a sound one, and I?ve raised it myself elsewhere.

We seem to be moving towards a de facto “no conservatives need apply” rule for the courts, whereby the appointment of an overt conservative is treated as grounds for a filibuster. Meanwhile, overt liberals are waved through with a cursory glance.

This is not a rule which can be allowed to stand.

The question of how best to get it rescinded is where conservatives differ. There are three options available.

1)Announce that overt liberals are no longer eligible to be appointed to the courts either.

2)Have a public discussion over this question in the course of a Supreme Court nomination fight over an overt conservative.

3)Send up ?stealth? conservatives who we know have conservative views, but who are easier to get confirmed without a bloody fight. If successful, then over time it will become impossible for the liberals to make the argument that conservative views do not belong on the court, since they are already there.

The end goal is not in question. Open conservatives will be appointed to the courts, period. All that remains to be seen is how vicious a fight will have to ensue before that happens.

At the moment, the GOP strategy is a combination of 2 and 3. I expect that the next nominee will be somebody who is less reticent about her views.

I would like to think that option #1 will never come into play, and that the Democrats will call a halt to the madness before we reach that point. But nothing I have seen from the Democrats gives me any confidence in their good sense or sense of fairness.

Jul 20, 2005 - 11:24 am 13. KarmiCommunist:

“Frankly I’m with Coulter.”

Ed,

Check these links out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Roberts_Jr.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society

i think that Roger nailed this…Ann is using “Triangulation”.

Jul 20, 2005 - 11:39 am 14. Tom of the Missouri:

I am with Coulter. Ambiguous records do indeed have a bad track record among wishful thinking republican presidents for producing conservative (meaning: don’t make the law up out of thin air as you go) justices. I hope he turns out to be the Manchurian Candidate of the right, but I have grave doubts this will be the case.

I seriously don’t get all the Coulter bashing. If she was as “extreme” and she supposedly is and was on the left, she would simply be a mainstream Democrat.

All due respect Roger, I think you are buying into the conventional wisdom, i.e., conservatives with ideas and strong opinions are “extreme”. If they every get dare get one wrong they are then not to be taken seriously. I guess this is especially true with women.

Ann Coulter, with whom I of course don’t always agree, is to me someone who is simply willing to say ëthe emperor has no clothes’. She is also extremely funny, witty and last but not least, hot.

Jul 20, 2005 - 11:39 am 15. flenser:

markus

There will always be extremists who see patience, tolerance, and willingness to compromise as signs of weakness.

Eventually, such people get ground into dust.

Jul 20, 2005 - 11:47 am 16. Terrye:

I disagree with Coulter. I am a centrist and I voted for Bush because I think he will fight the War on Terror and because I think he is a man of principles.

I am sick and tired of extremists on both sides of the issue bitching and moaning every frigging time they don’t get what they want when they want it.

There are 290 million people in this country and obviously nobody is going to make all of them happy.

Naysayers made the same kind of arguments about Rehnquist years ago and he turned into a solid conservatives.

I am no legal scholar but I have heard some good things abot this man. And now we have the Kos Kids and Ann Coulter both whining.

Most important thing, this is Bush’s choice. He has earned the right to make the choice he thinks is right. For months now I have been hearing conservatives say the president has a right to his choice and the choice in turn deserves and up or down vote.

How has that changed?

Jul 20, 2005 - 11:50 am 17. Terrye:

speaking of Rehnquist, Roberts was his law clerk and Rehnquist recommended him. or so I heard.

Jul 20, 2005 - 11:54 am 18. Kevin P:

Roger:

Once again President Bush is just doing what he said he would. All during the election he said he would not have any litmus test for judges, that he would look for judges who will not try to legislate from the Bench, and he would look for the most qualified. Roberts fits all these qualities.

Washington D.C. has a very small town quality. Everybody knows everybody elses business. Roberts is very well known and his views, although not on paper, are very well known by the administration and by most of the more conservative wing of the Republican party. Once a judge is on the SCOTUS there is no guarantee how any judge will rule. But looking at his life, his circle of friends, and the direction he has taken in his life the odds of him becoming a Souter is slim.

Politically the pick is brilliant. If the Dems try to filibuster the gang of 14 will fall apart and the filibuster for circuit court and SCOTUS judges will be lost as a weapon for the Dems. But Schumer and Biden will get heavy pressure from Nan and Nies and the base of the party to use it. Bush has forced the Democratic Senators to choose between bowing down to Bush and showing their impotency, and thus enraging their base, or choosing a suicide filibuster that will make the base happy but end up with Roberts on the court and the filibuster for judges destroyed.

Bush has beat the Dems again. He may be stupid but he seems to beat the Dems every time.

Kevin Peters

Jul 20, 2005 - 11:55 am 19. Katherine:

There is only one thing that concerns me: will Roberts make up laws, or upheld them? Will he respect the Constitution or disregard it whenever it dos not fit his personal bias?

I do not care what opinions and prejudices judges bring with them to the bench as long as they are willing to lay them aside while making rulings. Frankly, the only judge that I consistently agree with, even when his decisions go against my personal wishes, is Clarence Thomas. He is the least ìactivistî and most ìoriginalistî of the judges. Even Scalia is often more than happy to put his personal conviction ahead the law and Constitution. Not so Thomas. I would love to see this man as a Chief Justice.

Jul 20, 2005 - 12:31 pm 20. BluStealer:

Lets not over react here. When has the Bush White House ever let us down? This is a guy who has appointed Bolton, Rice, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz and numerous federal judges. Do you think he hasn’t properly vetted Roberts who is known as a conservative? This just paves the way for Garza or Janice Rogers Brown when Rehnquist steps down in a month.

Jul 20, 2005 - 12:31 pm 21. Joe Schmoe:

Kevin P nails it.

As a lawyer, I don’t know where Ann is coming from. Roberts is the perfect conservative appointment. It really doesn’t get any better than this.

Bush and the conservative establishment know exactly who Roberts is. They have worked with him for years. More importantly, they know him socially. And while it is possible to conceal your views from your coworkers, it is much harder to conceal them from your friends.

Jul 20, 2005 - 12:32 pm 22. Charlie (Colorado):

Oh, Ed, for God’s sakes. He clerked for Rehnquist, who clearly thinks highly of him. Roberts was a Special Assistant to William French Smith, and a Associate Counsel to Fred Fielding, both working for Reagan. He’s a member of the Federalists. He’s briefed against Roe v. Wade and in favor of compelling unions to obey court orders.

He’s also brilliant, highly respected, and Teddy Kennedy hates him.

What more could you ask?

Here’s a selzer bottle, put your hair out.

Jul 20, 2005 - 12:38 pm 23. Steven Mitchell:

I also agree with Kevin P and company. To the extent that Roberts does have a trail, it is a good one. He seems to have a reasonable regard for precedence–one that understands that opinions written with regard to precedence (e.g. Roe) don’t get cut as much slack as the original Constitution.

It’s really too much to ask to have a court full of Scalia clones. But a good healthy mixture of Scalia types, Thomas types, Renquist types, and even a few Kennedy types–would probably keep their paws off of issues that didn’t concern the courts.

Jul 20, 2005 - 12:44 pm 24. ed:

When has the Bush White House ever let us down?

Bolton

Jul 20, 2005 - 12:44 pm 25. Pat Curley:

Tom, I don’t see any Coulter bashing going on here. What we’re noting is that having Ann come out against Roberts may help him more with the centrists/moderates than it hurts him with conservatives (which is true, IMHO).

Jul 20, 2005 - 12:44 pm 26. Lola:

Ann Coulter may be smart, but sometimes she’s too smart for her own good. And folks should just give Bush the benefits of doubt. It’s obvious that he’s given a serious thought as to his choices for the position. Remember that he’s a poker player and you play with him for cash at your own risk as you’ll end up getting cleaned out before you’ve blinked your eyes twice.

From what little I have read of Roberts so far, he seems like a perfectly sane man who takes his job seriously, taking great pains to issue rulings based on law and not how he feels at this particular moment. Just what we need for the court.

Jul 20, 2005 - 12:44 pm 27. Katherine:

ìTeddy Kennedy hates himî

Charlie,

One cannot get higher recommendation that that, as far as I am concerned.

Jul 20, 2005 - 12:45 pm 28. Kevin P:

Roger:

Bush is also setting up the Dems for the next selection. The press,Dems, and the special interest groups are using the “It should have been a woman. There should be sexual diversity. He replaced a woman with another white male.” When Rhenquist retires he will nominate Brown, Owens,Clements or Jones. Bush can say that “I listened to the Democrats desire for(let’s say if he puts up Brown) for sexual and ethnic diversity on the court. I know they were so concerned when I replaced O’Connor with a white male. Thus I selcted someone with a brilliant mind, legal expertise, and the unique insight of an African American Woman.

Bush would then sit back and watch the various special interest groups say she is not really Black, not really a woman. I can’t wait. He will expose that the Dems don’t care about diversity, they only care about ideaology.

Kevin Peters

Jul 20, 2005 - 12:49 pm 29. ed:

Hmmmm.

1. “That was you Glenn Renyolds was quoting, right?”

Yes. There are a couple solid conservative candidates where there is no question about where they stand or how they think. Instead we’ve got someone where we have no idea how this person is going to vote, and how they’ll continue to vote for the next 35 years.

2. “Is that poster serious or was it a parody? Sounds like the latter to me.”

I’m serious. I’m frankly sick and tired of the GOP. I’m still getting fund-raising letters from *Frist* about judicial activism and how he needs my money to combat it.

3. “Ed is just confused.”

And you’ve never read Souter’s bio. The same words, phrases and nonsense being tossed about for Roberts was once done for Souter. Conservative groups all over America praised Souter for being a solid conservative that would help reform the Supreme Court.

Is it mockery? Or is it Memorex?

4. “We seem to be moving towards a de facto “no conservatives need apply” rule for the courts, whereby the appointment of an overt conservative is treated as grounds for a filibuster.”

That’s pretty much it. Democrats may be a minority party, but at least they know how to fight.

5. “Check these links out:”

For Christ sake. Roberts was adovcating the agenda of other people! When Roberts was a lawyer and not a judge, which was the vast majority of his career, he represented various levels of government. In that capacity he did NOT represent his own views and instead represented the views of his clients, i.e. his bosses.

He even stated that explicitly several times in interviews and I believe his DC court nomination process.

So pointing to these efforts is absolutely meaningless because the do NOT represent Robert’s actual legal views. Of which we know just about nothing because Roberts hasn’t published anything. He hasn’t ruled on anything substantial other than the Hamdi case, where he concurred with the majority. Roberts hasn’t taken a stand on ANYTHING. He hasn’t had to defend his views on ANYTHING.

You do not know what he is thinking, or how he thinks or anything about this guy.

And quite frankly references from 20+ years ago is ridiculous. You’re telling me that this guy didn’t evolve his opinions in all that time?

6. “Lets not over react here. When has the Bush White House ever let us down?”

You mean on the Prescription Drug law? Illegal Aliens? Border Control? Small government? Nominating solid conservatives?

Anyone who wants to can continuine going over the top for this guy. But Bush interviewed him and declined to ask specific questions, and then boasted about it as if it were a huge publicity coup.

We do not know anything about him.

We do not know how he thinks.

We do not know how he will vote.

We do not know how strong his conservative anchors are.

We do not know if he’ll remain conservative.

we do not know if he’ll drift leftward.

We do not know if he’s flaky like O’Connor (appointed by Reagan).

We know nothing about him.

Frankly a state of ignorance is not a state of grace.

All this stuff is conjecture and hope. And quite frankly I didn’t bust my ass for more than decade to end up in a position of f-ing hoping that a Supreme Court candidate won’t end up screwing me a decade in the future.

Jul 20, 2005 - 1:01 pm 30. KarmiCommunist:

Kevin P,

Better make it Janice Rogers Brown when you use “Brown”, because Yahoo! gives Edith Brown Clement when searching for “Judge Brown”.

Anyway, i’ve heard that W probably plans on making John Rogers ‘HC’ when Rehnquist steps down, and that would be a good time to get Janice in…so to speak of “setting” up the Dems.

Jul 20, 2005 - 1:17 pm 31. Lew Clark:

“ed” is a left-wing troll that infects a number of conservative blogs with his pseudo-conservative nut-job posts. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

On Roberts. I knew/know very little about any of the candidates. But, when Reinquest got sick the judicial minds in the conservative blog world started putting lists together. Pryor, Luttig, McConnell, and Roberts, in some order nearly always topped the list. There was no consideration of confirmability, just credentials. But none of these were given much hope of being the nominee to replace O’Connor because they were all white males and that just wouldn’t be pc. So I was very pleased that Roberts was picked, because he is considered so highly by so many “in the know”.

Of course my pick was Roger L. Simon because he could write such interesting and entertaining opinions.

Jul 20, 2005 - 1:17 pm 32. flenser:

ed

See my 11:24.

And keep in mind that we did not know, in the sense that you want to know, how Thomas or Scalia or Rehnquist would vote when they were appointed. There is always going to be some element of gambling in appointing SC justices.

Power corrupts people and goes to their heads. Term limiting judges is the best way to control this. If we get a bad apple, he should not wind up on the bench for thirty years.

As best anyone can tell, your fears are probably groundless. I saw a study of the relative “conservativness” of Bushs appointments to all courts, relative to those of Reagan, Bush1, and Clinton. Not only are they to the right of Clintons judges, they are to the right of Papa Bush’s and Reagans.

Bush has done much to irk conservatives, but he has been rock solid on judges and Second Amdt issues.

Jul 20, 2005 - 1:22 pm 33. KarmiCommunist:

ed,

Apparently this one was meant for humble me:

“5. “Check these links out:”"

Try this:

1) He graduated first in the class of 1973 from La Lumiere, a small Catholic boarding school near LaPorte, Indiana.

2) He is a practicing Catholic.

3) Roberts is currently a member of the Federalist Society…

Also this:

1) The Federalist Society began at the University of Chicago Law School and Yale Law School in 1982 as a student organization that challenged what it saw as the orthodox liberal ideology found in most law schools.

2) The Society has many prominent conservative members, including United States Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, former United States Circuit Court Judge Robert Bork, United States Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts, Jr., former United States Attorney General Edwin Meese, and former California Attorney General Dan Lungren.

3) The Society also has many prominent libertarians who are members and frequent speakers at Society events…

4) Therefore, the Society’s name is also a reference to the Federalist Papers…

Listed here:

http://karmicommunist.blogspot.com/

Jul 20, 2005 - 1:26 pm 34. markus:

Hard to see the Roberts pick as anything but a win for Bush. As a liberal Dem, all I can do is hope the hearings will frighten enough “security moms” to help us pick up a few more seats in 2006. And hope he turns into a Justice Kennedy.

Kevin P: I doubt Dems will filibuster Roberts. We don’t have the votes. Roberts will be considered the replacement for Rehnquist, not O’Conner. When Rehnquist steps down is when the real battle will begin.

Flenser: I hope you counsel moderation and compromise among Republicans as well.

The last Dem I know that tried the roll-over and compromise strategy was Max Cleland in ‘01 and ‘02. Bush thanked him for his support on the tax cuts and on the war resolution by getting the RNC to run Bin-Laden/Cleland ads in 2002.

Jul 20, 2005 - 1:29 pm 35. ed:

Hmmmm.

1. “”ed” is a left-wing troll that infects a number of conservative blogs with his pseudo-conservative nut-job posts. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”

Well that’s one for the scrapbook. I don’t think I’ve ever been accused of being a “left-wing troll”. I think I’ve got to copy this one to my friends. It’s simply astonishing. Most people would describe me as a hardline fiscal conservative, not a lefty.

Amazing.

2. “Apparently this one was meant for humble me: ”

No it has nothing to do with “humbling” or any of that nonsense.

Great. He was good at school and joined the correct club. Now please explain how that will allow us to determine how this guy will vote as a Supreme for the next 35 years.

I await your wisdom.

3. “And keep in mind that we did not know, in the sense that you want to know, how Thomas or Scalia or Rehnquist would vote when they were appointed. There is always going to be some element of gambling in appointing SC justices.”

True to a point. But if someone has a long trail of scholarship on the issues and has had to defend them then it’s a lot more likely that they won’t start to drift.

In large part it’s not whether or not he’s a conservative now. It’s whether or not he’s a conservative 20 years from now.

A “left-wing troll”! Absolutely f-ing amazing. I think I’ll cross-link this to JustOneMinute, WizbangBlog and CaptainsQuartersBlog. They’ll laugh their ass off when they read this.

Jul 20, 2005 - 1:42 pm 36. Orson2:

If all you care about is getting a qualified candidate through, Roger it right. But if you care about the principles that animate the Constituion – a document listing, taking on collectivist water, going down into the asheap of historical irrelevance – then Bush blew it.

As Randy Barnett argues convincingly over at http://www.volokh.com, it takes a great deal of effort to enunciate a coherent judicial philosophy and merely studious indecision to avoid it.

A commenter posted THE relevent quote from Roberts that nails him:

[remark from Judge Roberts' COA confirmation hearings]:

“I donít know if thatís a flaw for a judicial nominee or not, not to have a comprehensive philosophy about constitutional interpretation, to be able to say, ‘Iím an originalist, Iím a textualist, Iím a literalist or this or that.’ I just donít feel comfortable with any of those particular labels. One reason is that as the Constitution uses the term ‘inferior court judge,’ Iíll be bound to follow the Supreme Court precedent regardless of what type of constructionist I, personally, might be. The other thing is, in my review over the years and looking at Supreme Court constitutional decisions, I donít necessarily think that itís the best approach to have an all-encompassing philosophy. The Supreme Court certainly doesnít. There are some areas where they apply what you might think of as a strict construction; there are other areas where they donít. And I donít accept the proposition that a strict constructionist is necessarily hostile to civil rights.”

[The poster conclued;] Apparently, not only does Judge Roberts not have a grand overarching interpretive theory for constitutional adjudication, he doesn’t think it’s a good idea to have one, either.

———————

Meet the new boss – same as the old boss: Robert’s is O’Conner with a penis! And Bush blows a chance the strike a blow for a constitution for liberty.

We are all the poorer for that.

Jul 20, 2005 - 1:46 pm 37. Matt in Tampa:

Charlie-

You had me at “Teddy Kennedy hates him.”

Ed:

Ed, don’t worry, I’ve been called an anti-semite at ahhhh “certain websites” for disagreeing that “carpet bombing Mecca” was a proper response to terrorist attacks. Anyone that knows me knows that I’m hardly an anti-semite and while carpet bombing mecca has some very dark appeal to me, I just don’t think its the proper response to a terrorist attack.

Anyway, for me, it comes down to Mark Levin’s take on things. If there’s a more knowlagable proponent of constitutional strict constructionists then Mark, I don’t know any- he’s giving Roberts ringing endorsements and given that Levin knows a helluva lot more than I do about potential nominees, I’ll take his word for it.

Jul 20, 2005 - 1:48 pm 38. flenser:

Markus

When I see the Republicans refusing to allow liberals to be appointed to the courts, while Democrats allow conservatives to be confirmed without difficulty, then I will urge the Republicans to be more moderate and reasonable. All right?

I have a hunch the Sun will burn out before I need follow up on that pledge.

Jul 20, 2005 - 1:49 pm 39. Kyda Sylvester:

Frankly, the only judge that I consistently agree with, even when his decisions go against my personal wishes, is Clarence Thomas.

I’m with you, Katherine. I didn’t expect it, but that’s how it turned out. If Roberts shows himself to be in the mold of a Justice Thomas, I will be a happy camper indeed. Thomas for CJ!

Jul 20, 2005 - 1:50 pm 40. Terrye:

I read on powerline that the Dems might go after Roberts because of the Hamdan case. He apparently agreed that military tribunals are good enough for the likes of Osama’s driver.

It seems to me that Roberts is a good candidate and I think that some of the ‘not one more dime club’ are over reacting. The fact that we can not read this man’s mind is not the point. The point is Bush picked him and that is Bush’s job. Maybe Bush is not the rigid idealogue that the far right hoped he was or that the left has painted him as. Maybe he is thinking about long term legacy here.

I don’t think ed is a troll, but I think that in this case he is being unreasonable.

Jul 20, 2005 - 2:00 pm 41. KarmiCommunist:

ed said: “…joined the correct club…I await your wisdom.”

Did you notice the list mentioned in that “club”? Obviously not, so i suggest that you stop holding yore breath whilst waiting. Also, in yore current condition, you should avoid eating fish and chicken.

Jul 20, 2005 - 2:02 pm 42. someone:

Wierd that all the misplaced outrage is coming out here.

Souter was a nobody from the wilds of New Hampshire. No one knew him well — and the conservative legal types around the White House had their grave doubts, and were pushing for Jones (or was it Ken Starr? — who was considered a squish back then). They were simply outmaneuvered by Sununu, who wanted his guy no matter what.

Roberts is one of those conservative White House guys (the others, you may notice, love him). Not only that, he’s been prominent in DC for ages. He knows how the game works, how the Court pressure groups work, and What It All Means. And all the players know him. There are no surprises here.

Roberts is Rehnquist, not Souter. Considering his wife was EVP of Feminists for Life, he may be even further right.

Jul 20, 2005 - 2:15 pm 43. Terrye:

Roberts was also around in DC years ago when Reagan was in office.

The Democrats will try to ruin any candidate that Bush brings up.

It would really be a shame if pissy conservatives helped them to their dirty work on this guy.

Jul 20, 2005 - 2:19 pm 44. flenser:

Terrye

Evidence for the “far right being unreasonable” meme seems pretty slim so far. One poster, ed, is responsible for a pretty big chunk of it.

PlameGate is serious business by comparision.

Jul 20, 2005 - 2:24 pm 45. Patrick Tyson:

I’m out of step (no surprise) with most of Roger’s commenting readers, but my motto regarding the seemingly interminable string of recently confirmed federal appellate court judges being nominated for elevation is: More Souters.

That being written, Roberts appears to be a solid choice who should have no trouble frustrating those who can’t cope with contradiction and ambiguity and then, after being confirmed rather easily, in putting his considerable intellect and experience to responsible use during his tenure on the court.

Jul 20, 2005 - 2:32 pm 46. KarmiCommunist:

More “Triangulation“?!?

“I am disappointed, in a sense, to see the percentage of women on our court drop by 50 percent, but I can’t be disappointed in the quality of person nominated. He’s first rate.” – Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor

Relax, ‘Gals’, W will bring in at least one more Woman before his term ends…

Jul 20, 2005 - 2:35 pm 47. Kyda Sylvester:

Did y’all know that Roberts used to be in the movies? Link…

Jul 20, 2005 - 2:37 pm 48. markus:

The only thing I think liberals can really attack him on based on his short tenure as Appelate Judge are a couple of environmental cases that raise serious questions about his views of federalism and the use of the Interstate Commerce Clause.

The real dream of the “Constitution-in-exile” movement is not to stop “judicial activism”, but rather to stop federal regulatory LEGISLATION, like OSHA, the Endangered Species Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, etc., by reverting to pre-New Deal interpretations of the Commerce Clause. If Roberts is going to help this movement achieve its aims, well…that’s one more reason why it was important to vote for Kerry in ‘04. Elections DO have consequences.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2005/2005-07-19-04.asp

Jul 20, 2005 - 2:38 pm 49. Terrye:

flesner:

Actually I was thinking of Coulter more than ed.

That and some other folks I have seen at some other sites.

But hey, if Fred Barnes likes Roberts he can not be too far from the right.

And I agree, the whole Plame thing is outrageous. But then again the Mayor of London blaming the bombings there on the CIA is outrageous too. The left is just silly. The right can over react sometimes but the left is hair brained.

I heard that the Iraqis are actually going to be ahead of scedule on their constitution. The left says they care about civil rights etc but if they had their way Saddam would be the dictator there today and the kind of people who are blowing up women and children would be running the place.

But to the left, we are the bad guys.

ed might over react, but he is a good man who knows the difference in right and wrong. I can not say the same thing for Joe Wilson or the Mayor of London.

Jul 20, 2005 - 2:57 pm 50. Terrye:

markus:

I know a man who is a quad and lives in a wheel chair. He is also a conservative and has no desire to see an end to ramps at public buildings.

I think that sometimes liberals go over board on these things.

Jul 20, 2005 - 2:59 pm 51. RiverRat:

Everyone that’s worried needs to take a look at Levin and Whalen have to say. These guys have known him for 20 to 25 years and are extremely high on him. If you’ve read Men in Black you’ll know that Levin is more of an originalist than Thomas.

The best conservative legal minds in the country have had Roberts in the top 3 for over a year. That Roberts is not a fire-breather is an advantage at this moment in time.

Now, if Dubya will give us Thomas as Chief and Janice Rogers Brown on the next appointment I’ll be more that pleased. If Stevens or Ginsberg go before the end Dubya’s term then he can have Gonzales. Only the religious right extremists will be unhappy and I could care fng less.

Jul 20, 2005 - 3:03 pm 52. Kyda Sylvester:

Critical Urgent Community Action Bulletin

from the Progressive Action Network For American Progress

For Immediate Release

Link…

Jul 20, 2005 - 3:03 pm 53. flenser:

Ah, the “Constitution in Exile” “movement”.

The left’s fatal attraction to paranoid conspiracy theories continues.

I hear the Jews left the WTC before the planes hit ….and that a plane did not crash into the Pentagon …. and that Bush was in cahoots with Bin Laden ….. and that Grandpa Bush worked with the Nazis….. and, and ,and … Judge Thomas wants black people to be slaves again …. and….

Back on Planet Earth, the expansive Commerece Clause interetation is what allows the feds to do things like prosocute some guy in California for growing pot for his own medical needs. Some trimming of the Commerece Clause is long overdue.

Jul 20, 2005 - 3:04 pm 54. KarmiCommunist:

Apparently W has decided to use the Military forms of Triangulation rather than Clinton’s:

c. Triangulation involves single triangles (Figure 6-1) and chains or schemes of triangles (Figure 6-4).

Note 6-4: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/6-2/ch62.htm

Jul 20, 2005 - 3:05 pm 55. markus:

A long and interesting debate on the use and meaning of the term “Constitution in Exile”, between Cass Sunstein and Randy Barnett, in Legal Affairs:

http://legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_cie0505.msp#Friday

Jul 20, 2005 - 3:33 pm 56. KarmiCommunist:

W can be rather brutal at times, huh. When the Dualistic term “Triangulation“ came up during the Clinton years, most thought that he had invented it whilst Gore was inventing the Internet…so to speak.

It now appears that the Dems are trapped in a “Chain” or “Scheme” of Triangles that are meant to find the accuracy ratio for killing human targets at a distance…and, such ‘Thangs. Apparently, W came up with this whilst fighting America’s foreign Enemies. We’re talking foreign Enemies, War, Battles, and all of that whilst trapping the domestic Enemy…so to speak of THREE Dimensional Triangulation.

Jul 20, 2005 - 3:57 pm 57. Kevin P:

Markus;

I don’t think the Dems will filibuster him either. McCain has already said that he deserves an up or down vote, Translation, filibuster Rogers and the filibuster is dead. It would be suicidal. But the base is already pushing very hard. The “we bought it, we own it” ethic is very strong in the democratic party. there planning to spens millions to stop Roberts and if you think Coulter is pissed just wait until Roberts wins the nomination and the far left will explode. The we can’t vote because he won’t answer questions won’t fly because of the Ginsburg and Breyer precedents.

I find it interesting the new rights that the Dems and the press are creating for President Bush. The “Status Qou O’Connor 5-4 Split” right. Bush is required to put someone with O’Connors judicial philosophy. When Clinton replaced White with Ginsburg he replaced a moderate with a liberal. I believe White voted against Roe v Wade but Clinton was not told that he should find a White clone. The Republicans hated Ginsburgs politics but she was qualified and clean. So they voted 96-3 to put her on the court. The Dems hated Thomas but they gave him a up or down vote.

To qoute that noted right wing fictional character President Bartlet of the “West Wing” , “Presidents decide the direction of the court.” We have had SCOTUS go from conservative to moderate to liberal and back and forth from the beginning of our country. If the opposition party had control of the Senate they were able to put more pressure on the sitting President on who he picked. Clinton was able to push the court in a more liberal direction because he won and nominated Breyer and Ginsburg.

The idea that the Dems and the press are pushing that there is some constitutional right to keep the Court locked into some idealogical freezer is pure crap. Bush won.The Senate is republican. Bush picks, not Schumer.

Kevin Peters

Jul 20, 2005 - 4:17 pm 58. richard mcenroe:

But what about the rumors that Roberts leaked Plame’s name to Judith Miller!

Jul 20, 2005 - 4:35 pm 59. RiverRat:

I suggest you all read the following on the “Fries” case. This is exactly the kind of reasoning I, for one, want on the SCOTUS.

Patterico on Roberts Fries

Jul 20, 2005 - 4:49 pm 60. richard mcenroe:

“This is a guy who has appointed Bolton, Rice, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz…” THOSE pinkos?! Where’s the David Duke appointment the DU promised me?

Jul 20, 2005 - 5:05 pm 61. flenser:

markus

People can wade through that long article if they wish, but I can sum the matter up in a few sentences.

There is no “Constitution in Exile movement”. Cass Sunstein, a liberal lawyer with a good grasp of left-liberal psychology, decided that he wanted to lump together all the different people who disagreed with left/liberal ideas for the Constitution. This included business-cons, theocons, neocons, moderate liberals, social-cons, libertarians – pretty much the world outside his own circle. Then he came up with a nickname for the imaginary group – the “Constitution in Exile movement”.

The fact that this “movement” does not actually exist, other than in his own mind, has not prevented him from writing extensivly about it. In other words, this whole issue is a pretty good illustration of the tendency of the contemporary left to view the world in terms of conspiracy theories, even when all the evidence is against them.

If I am wrong, of course, than markus can easily supply me with the name of the head of the movement, it’s address, it’s website, it’s financial disclosure forms, number of members, and so on.

Jul 20, 2005 - 5:07 pm 62. richard mcenroe:

Flenser — Didn’t you get your lapel pin and shoulder patch yet?

Shoot, maybe we ought to make some up, just to freak Markus et al…

Jul 20, 2005 - 5:28 pm 63. Kevin P:

Flenser:

Thats the beauty part. All secret organizations spread their members among various groups. They use the National Enquirer as a code book so all members who have the translation book can read the weekly instructions. They read the Protocols of Zion and learned from that. of course the jooos are the real power behind the group but many of the members don’t know that so keep it quiet. Did you notice the secret handshake between Bush and Roberts last night?

Kevin Peters

Jul 20, 2005 - 5:32 pm 64. Knucklehead:

Richard McEnroe,

You got a lapel pin? Please tell me you paid for it seperate from the membership fee as I did – I hate to get ripped off on these things. Miss two meetings in a row and baddabing, you’re footin’ the bill for half the local cadre’s functions. The shoulder patch was kinda cheesy, doncha think?

Jul 20, 2005 - 5:53 pm 65. Kevin P:

Knucklehead:

You are showing a amazing lack of discipline. Keep that whinning up and the Commitee for Control of all Members will have to act. We have access to all of your bank accounts and we know where your gold coins are buried. One day you may use your ATM card and find nothing there. This time we will assume that you were suffering from sleep deprevation and that you were not thinking straight. You may recieve a late night helicopter visit soon. Peace out.

From the name that can’t be uttered.

Jul 20, 2005 - 6:03 pm 66. markus:

flenser — “If I am wrong, of course, than markus can easily supply me with the name of the head of the movement, it’s address, it’s website, it’s financial disclosure forms, number of members, and so on.”

You are indeed wrong. “Constitution in Exile” , originally coined in passing by Douglas Ginsberg, a major theoretician of the movement, was later adopted as apt moniker and pejorative by the movement’s OPPONENTS, led by Sunstein, Jeffrey Rosen and others. It describes real people who really exist, who would have no trouble being instead called “strict constuctionists” or “originalists”, and who truly, madly, deeply yearn to restore pre-New Deal understandings to key parts of the Constitution like the Commerce Clause, in order to prevent them from being used as a justification for the federal regulatory and welfare initiatives that have been PASSED BY CONGRESS.

Rehnquist is NOT part of the Constitution-in-Exile crowd, nor is Scalia. Thomas is. Saying this, I suppose is just calling a rose a rose, roughly analogous to saying “Rob Reiner is a ‘Howard Dean Democrat.’”

We have no hard evidence that Judge Roberts subscribes to these views, and indications that he probably doesn’t. But as I said above his two environmental rulings do raise some concerns — and I’m sure he will be questioned in this regard.

Kevin P — “The idea that the Dems and the press are pushing that there is some constitutional right to keep the Court locked into some idealogical freezer is pure crap. Bush won.The Senate is republican. Bush picks, not Schumer.”

Kevin, ‘you guys’ (the Bush team) have won the toss and elected to receive. You have the right to save our country from destruction by scoring as many touchdowns as you can, as long as you play by the rules. We also have the right to play ball, and to stop you guys from doing what we believe just as strongly will be damaging to the country.

This means you can nominate whomever you want, and we shall respond as we see fit. If when Rehnquist or John Paul Stevens resigns you have the balls to nominate someone who clearly changes the ideological balance, then we’ll (hopefully) filibuster. Then, you can ask the ref (Senate parliamentarian) to rule that this is illegal, although he has declined to do this several times before. You can try to find 67 votes to change the rules, or 60 votes to end the filibuster. Finally, you can get Cheney to blow up the rules with the “nuclear option”. YOU CAN USE WHATEVER TOOLS YOU HAVE AT YOUR DISPOSAL. And if you go nuclear, we can then make sure that almost no other legislation passes for the remainder of this session of Congress.

Both sides can take this as far as they deem fit. And depending on the quality of the arguments each sides makes as they carry out their “game plan”, the voters in ‘06 and ‘08 will be the ultimate refs. That’s how it’s supposed to work.

But I don’t think it’s gonna happen this time around.

Finally, regarding Clinton-era picks, I think it is fair to say that replacing Byron White with Ginsberg served to balance Bush 41’s replacement of Thurgood Marshall with Thomas. Basically the ideological balance of the Court has been the same since the mid-eighties.

Good night, folks.

Jul 20, 2005 - 7:03 pm 67. Orson2:

markus is right about one thing: Douglas Ginsberg is a theortician of the “constitution in exile” people.

But calling a group that could fit into any living room a “movement” – as Sunstein and Rosen do – is surely a wild stretch.

THE PROBLEM with conservatism is its endemic willingness (pace Scalia in upholding state prerogatives in Kelo as “constitutional”) to compromise with the Devils we know – the “progressive” judical activists. It’s called “not legislating from the bench,” a stritcture which turns “conservatives” into straight-jacketed stooges for the socialist Left.

Thus, nearly all Republican picks for the Supremes turnout to uphold the rotgut of statism we hate. (Drink deep, my fellow idiots! The better to forget another squandered victory, just like Charlie Brown and Lucy’s football antics, pulling away at the last moment.) NO ONE, except a rare few like Thomas, has any vision for a fight over American constiutional fundamentals worthy of our freedoms.

In selecting Roberts, Bush merely upholds the status quo. He does the cause of restoring our freedoms no service…like kicking the can down the road, until we’ve all forgotten that the Declaration once truely meant something to the people. The Constitution was designed to secure our liberties – not Imperial rule by the black robed agents of King George, III, to lord more and more legistlative prerogatives over the ruled peasants.

Welcome to another day in France. I’m revolted!

Jul 20, 2005 - 7:45 pm 68. Katherine:

How come I never get the memo? No lapel pin either. I cannot even boast a decoder ring. Yet here I am, perfectly good Christer neocon (the agnostic, Hayekan subsection), donating to the bleeding GOP causes and in general spreading the War for Oil is Good message far and wide. And what does it get me? I tell you, few Epson Stylus Photo prints of Stud Bush, that is all!

So what exactly does one need to do to get membership privileges in one of the societies such as Constitution in Exile (good name!)?! Can anyone around here recommend me for the membership?

Jul 20, 2005 - 7:49 pm 69. Orson2:

To all the Bush lackey here, I borrow from one “Fern R” – who posted the following at Volokh conspiracy – the most relvent question going utterly unanswered here (see above):

If you, like Roberts, daon’t have any discernable judicial philosophy, exactlyhow do you decide a question of constiutional principle?

- – - – - – - – - – -

Fern R (mail) (www):

To those of you who support not having a judicial philosophy, an honest question for you: How do you propose a judge without a judicial philosophy should decide the case? If Judge Roberts was sitting on the Supreme Court when Kelo or Raich was decided, how should Judge Roberts decide what the Takings Clause or the Commerce Clause means and determine how it should be applied in each case? Is it Judge Robert’s gut feeling that should determine his vote? His understanding of “justice?” Fairness? If so, whose idea of fairness?

I am at a total loss as to how a Judge could formulate a non-arbitrary way to determine how to vote without a judicial philosophy. One of the most valuable aspects of a society based on the rule of law is predictability. Afterall, that’s one of the reasons corporations like to incorporate in Delaware: Delaware has a solid body of well settled law and Corporations know exactly what they are getting when they incorporate there. So, my point is, how can any of us lesser mortals know how we are supposed to interpret the law (and then abide by that interpretation) when Supreme Court Justices rely on something as nebulous as how they are feeling that morning or what they had for breakfast?

7.20.2005 6:24pm

- – - – - – - – - -

OK. Now that you’ve answered this with the obvous “you can’t” – now tell me, once again, why we ought to trust this “brilliant” cypher named Roberts?

Jul 20, 2005 - 8:00 pm 70. Kevin P:

markus;

First of all I am a registered independent but I have voted Republican the last two Presidential campaigns after 24 years of straight ticket Democratic voting.

I appreciate your candor. This is hardball and whatever works is what is going to happen. The Senate rules can be changed on technicalities and it has been done before. The senate rules are whatever the Senate decides they are.The republicans watched Sen. Byrd and took notes. So your 67 vote threshold is not sacrosanct and since the dems have tossed tradition aside there is no reasons the Repubs can’t do the same thing.

As far as your threat to shut down the government Newt tried that gambit and it worked great for him so good luck. I am sure the voters will understand.

There is no such thing as the right to ideological balance. You like the current “balance” because it works in your favor. I don’t mind people fighting for their candidates and parties. But the creation of this myth is still crap. It is one thing to say a candidate is bad and we don’t like his politics. Like you said elections will decide what the people want in ‘06 and 08. But this made up principle of “balance” is sophistry at it’s best. The dems are acting as if the last election didn’t count. It was one thing to say that 2000 was so unusual that the normal procedures should be set aside. But this election was clear. President Bush won. The Republicans increased their majority in the Senate.The majority leader of the Senate got the boot. To portray ‘balance” as some sort of tradition is intellectually bogus and a historic fantasy.

Who will win? Who knows. But at least we have cleared the air and we won’t have to go thru any Sen. Byrd like wailing about destroying free speech and democracy. You have admitted that this is a street fight and anything goes. So far the Dems have not been doing so well and all your predictions for democratic renewal sound very similar to the great Kerry victory we heard so much about in 2004. But Bush is so dumb so I am sure the fact that he keeps beating the Dems is just a fluke.

Kevin Peters

Jul 20, 2005 - 8:12 pm 71. Kevin P:

minority

Jul 20, 2005 - 8:16 pm 72. flenser:

Markus

A “movement” as the term is generally understood, denotes some kind of concious organised effort, by people who are more or less aware that they ARE a movement.

The “Constitution in Exile movement” is a fiction created by Sunstein, as you admit yourself. I could as easily describe you as being a member of the “Tear Up the Constitution movement”. I think I will.

Orson2

I detect some unhappiness on your part, and some objections to the existing process. Can I prevail on you to offer some constructive suggestions for what you think ought to be done instead?

You may want to consider that all judges are ciphers when they are assigned to the Supreme Court.

Take any handful of people, and put tremendous and unchecked power into their hands, and some will abuse it. Your solution is…?

Jul 20, 2005 - 8:16 pm 73. someone:

Orson’s just appalled by the idea of winning political victories by political means. Poor guy.

Jul 20, 2005 - 8:31 pm 74. Luther McLeod:

Well, here’s an imperfect analogy on expectations. There is no sure thing as to how a particular individual will respond to the weight of promotion and/or entry into a hazardous situation. We train, we think, we prepare, but in the end there is no answer, beforehand, as to who will turn to vinegar and who will turn to piss. GW has made a shrewd move in my estimation. But, how will Roberts turn out? No one knows, really. Its not until you hear the zing of the round passing your ear that you know where the mettle is. I think the right should take the best they may be able to get, right now. The left should be thankful it’s not worse.

Jul 20, 2005 - 8:59 pm 75. Barry Dauphin:

I wonder if there will be speculation on the Daily Kos site that the source Judy Miller is protecting is Judge Roberts! That could get Plame and SCOTUS to be on the front pages simulataneously.

Jul 20, 2005 - 9:08 pm 76. Kevin P:

Barry:

No, the Kos kids are concentrating on outing Roberts gay five year old boy.

Jul 20, 2005 - 10:27 pm 77. Syl:

We cannot have it both ways: We cannot expect an end to judicial activism while desiring a conservative activist (who would, for example, attempt to overthrow Roe v Wade).

To oversimplify (as I am usually wont to do) one either adjucates for a desired outcome, or accepts whatever outcome results from settled law and constitutionality…whether desired or not.

If that outcome is ridiculous, it is then the legislative branch’s obligation to change the law. (exactly what happened in the D.C. Fries case)

Pit that against CA courts expanding existing law to mean more than what was intended (workplace hostility) and there is no wriggle room for the legislative branch to work with.

I put Rogers firmly in the camp that does not decide a case by outcome first, justification later.

And that, really, is all I want.

Jul 20, 2005 - 11:14 pm 78. Orson2:

On the one hand, I admire Luther McLeod’s equanimity. On the other hand, there are those like Ann Coulter who argue that not playing a winning hand is playing to lose. I agree, and I’m dismayed to call this “leadership” – unlike silly “someone.”

flenser notes: “You may want to consider that all judges are ciphers when they are assigned to the Supreme Court. Take any handful of people, and put tremendous and unchecked power into their hands, and some will abuse it. Your solution is…?”

Well, the Founder’s expected us to loose our freedoms. We could just decide to do nothing – forget the US, and start over somewhere else!

Yet we could choose to be brilliant and strategic and make the smart moves….So much for Rove’s overhyped brilliance! I’m unhappy to report it’s exaggeration – I hoped for too much from the White House, and that’s why Coulter’s quite proerly steamed.

It’s true – no one really knows how Roberts will decide. If a Tiger can grow spots, why can’t he develop a coherent, principled judicial philosophy at the young age of 50 years? (History and biology’s just against either.)

Jul 21, 2005 - 12:38 am 79. Orson2:

I hate to say “I told you so,” but this quote from leftie Con Law prof Lawrence Tribe inpires me to say so:

“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.

ìHeís conservative in manner and conservative in approach,î Tribe said. ìHeís a person who is cautious and careful, thatís 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.î

http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/5517770.html

Jul 21, 2005 - 1:48 am 80. Syl:

Oh my, Orson, you are SOOOOOOO right! Roberts is someone who puts the law above politics!

For SHAME!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jul 21, 2005 - 3:55 am 81. Terrye:

Orson:

I actually heard Tribe talk about Roberts and that is not what he said at all. He said the man is brilliant but……and then he made it plain this was not his pick.

Hey, I tell you what..is Pat Buchanan a lawyer? Now there you go a real conservative that rigid right thinking idelaogues everywehre can get behind and screw everybody else.

Like I said I voted for Bush and I am glad he picked someone with legacy in mind and not the simple desire to cater to interest groups on either fringe.

Jul 21, 2005 - 5:11 am 82. SDN:

Syl, I’m going to make the same comment to you that I wanted to make to “Chuckie” Schumer’s idiot remark about Roberts needing a decent respect for precedent: By that “standard”, Dred Scott and Plessy should still be in effect. Roe was wrongly decided and should be overturned at the first opportunity.

Jul 21, 2005 - 7:41 am 83. Knucklehead:

Katherine,

Yet here I am, perfectly good Christer neocon (the agnostic, Hayekan subsection)

Were you that tall, dark-eyed, stylishly svelte babe with the bodacious tattas at last year’s Agnostic Hayekians breakout session during the ‘04 Christer Neocon National Convention?

Jul 21, 2005 - 7:42 am 84. someone:

SDN: Roe is toast (well, given another conservative replacement). We actually seem to be talking about Wickard v. Filburn.

Of course, the federal commerce power isn’t the only economic issue on the table.

Jul 21, 2005 - 8:01 am 85. flenser:

Were you that tall, dark-eyed, stylishly svelte babe with the bodacious tattas at last year’s Agnostic Hayekians breakout session during the ‘04 Christer Neocon National Convention?

First the “Constitution in Exile movement”, and now this? How come I’m never invited to all the fun stuff?

Jul 21, 2005 - 10:18 am 86. flenser:

Orson, you continue to waffle. What are the brilliant, strategic, smart moves that you want, if Roberts selection was not it?

Jul 21, 2005 - 10:26 am 87. Syl:

SDN, everybody and their dog knows that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided.

But I think you should watch what you wish for. If it’s struck down, that will be the end of the Republican majority.

All you’d get out of it would be a couple of states that made abortion illegal. It’s back to back alleys and coat hangers for them or trips across the state border.

My goodness, some of you don’t even allow contraception. I hope you understand you have your own slippery slope thang going. Gotta keep a husband and wife doin’ it 24 hours a day to be sure none of those eggs go to waste.

Productivity of a different kind, I guess.

Sorry for the tone, because I’m obviously conflicted over this entire issue. I don’t think abortion should be a lifestyle choice, but neither do I think it should be illegal.

Jul 21, 2005 - 10:30 am 88. ed:

Hmmmm.

“Did you notice the list mentioned in that “club”? Obviously not, so i suggest that you stop holding yore breath whilst waiting. Also, in yore current condition, you should avoid eating fish and chicken.”

Look it’s nice he joined a great club, but what is the requirements for membership? Is it any more than saying “hey. I’m a conservative.” and paying your dues? Seriously, what are the requirements for joining this club? How difficult is it? Do they screen applicants?

Or do you just show up and everybody says “Hi!”?

==============================================

Ok here’s an off-the-wall completely speculative and totally idiotic scenario. No I don’t believe it’s true, but it is an interesting thought exercise.

Over the past few decades 7 of the last 10 Presidents have been Republicans. The odds therefore of being appointed to the Supreme Court is better if you’re a Republican than if you’re a Democrat. One of the principle political groups in the Republican Party are conservatives. So the odds of becoming a Supreme Court justice are best if you’re a conservative Republican.

Now the downside is that the confirmation hearings tend to be very very rough. The Democrats tend to inspect the Supreme Court candidates with a microscope and will not hesitate to hammer anyone they find objectionable. So the best way to avoid such situations is to avoid doing anything in your career that Democrats would find objectionable. And being a conservative Republican would make that inspection even tougher, so a greater effort has to be made to avoid any action that might be misconstrued by Democrats.

Now this is entirely speculation and really just for the hell of it. Assume that Judge Roberts is pretending to be a conservative Republican and is in fact at best a liberal-moderate and possibly even a hard liberal, who has hidden his politics for the past few decades in order to achieve his lifetime goal of becoming a Supreme Court Justice. A sort of Trojan Judge so to speak.

Now. From Judge Robert’s writings, articles, rulings and actions prove this scenario wrong. Please do not try to rely on opinions of third parties or how other people view him.

I thought it was an interesting exercise because a friend posed this question and frankly, I was stumped.

So, you supporters of Roberts prove this theory wrong. Not because anybody believes it’s true, I can’t say that I do or that anybody I know even thinks this, but just for the hell of it.

Jul 21, 2005 - 10:47 am 89. Kevin P:

Orson2

What Bush and many conservatives have wanted from the Supreme Court is a court that would look to the Constitution and not legislate. What you seem to want is a court that legislates, just from a conservative point of view. By taking that attitude you create a court that will be in a constant legislative battle without being held up for eletion. That is exactly what many conservatives want to get away from because it is unstable and not democratic. That is what we have now with a liberal spin.

I am pro life. Any court case can be revisited. It should be done rarely but for anyone to argue otherwise would have to say that the slavery laws couldn’t be revisited. Roe v Wade was the classic case of legislating from the bench. Many pro-choice lawyers admit that it was poorly done. But I don’t want it overturned without proper legal and constitutional methods behind it. If we get into the I don’t like the law, I, as a supreme court member, will change it we are doing the same thing that conservatives accuse the left of doing. SCOTUS should not be a super legislator, right or left.

If Roe v Wade is overturned all it will do is give it back to the states. 90% of the states will keep abortion legal. I live in California and abortion was legal 3 years before RvW. If the court had not decided to impose abortion on the States more then likely the vast majority of the country would have voted it in and all this rancor would not have happened.

I am pro-life and I don’t think that my views should be shut out of the system anymore then someone who is for gay marriage should be told not to try to get their felow citizens to vote for what they believe in because they are in the minority today. But it should be done from the ballot box, not imposed by the SCOTUS.

Kevin Peters

Jul 21, 2005 - 11:04 am 90. ed:

Hmmmm.

“What Bush and many conservatives have wanted from the Supreme Court is a court that would look to the Constitution and not legislate.”

Well I frankly agree with that statement. My primary issue with Roberts is that I’m not at all assured that this is what Roberts will do. I’m not assured that Roberts won’t be another O’Connor or Souter or Stevens or Kennedy.

The only thing that makes Roberts a candidate is that he’ll have an easier time getting through the minority Democrats in the senate.

Frankly that’s pretty pathetic for a majority party to value so highly.

Jul 21, 2005 - 12:22 pm 91. ed:

Hmmmm.

@ KarmiCommunist

1. “3) Roberts is currently a member of the Federalist Society…”

Actually, according to CaptainsQuartersBlog and the WAPO, he is NOT a member of the Federalist Society.

link

2. “Did you notice the list mentioned in that “club”? Obviously not, so i suggest that you stop holding yore breath whilst waiting. Also, in yore current condition, you should avoid eating fish and chicken.”

Man I feel for you KarmiCommunist. You must feel like a complete idiot. Don’t worry, in a few days nobody’ll ever remember.

That’s probably one of the best things about blogs. Then again there’s always Google, so everybody has to take their chances I guess.

I wouldn’t worry about it, but I’d suggest doing your own primary research. Newspapers are ok, but they’re not always reliable.

Jul 21, 2005 - 12:33 pm 92. Kevin P:

ed:

In a perfect world you and I might have picked somebody other then Roberts. But from everything I can see, the way he has led his life, the staunch conservatives that are backing him, his family. and even the french fries case, I believe that Rogers is a conservative and a judge who will not succomb to the desire to legislate.

You poo poo the politics of the Roberts nomination but to think any President,right, left or middle, can ignore the reality of political considerations is to pretend that this is a perfect world with perfect people. Bush will have 1 to 3 more picks. The nature of his political power at this moment is a real factor that can not be ignored. The best and the most frustrating part of our political system is that we do not have a king who can just dictate what he wants. It’s great because dictatorships and monarchy’s are unstable and unjust. It’s frusrating because the ugly political dance that any leader has to go thru leads to less then perfect solutions sometimes.

It would do no good to put up someone that would not get approved. Bork was a dissaster. not because he was a bad judge. But because his nomination process was not looked at in a realistic way. it failed , and then led to an horrible substitute because the Presidents power was diminished in the atempt.

Ugly fact. The gang of 14 pulled limited what Bush could do. McCain and Graham screwed Bush and Frist bungled the first attempt to remove the filibuster. That sucked. Bush is just dealing with the facts, not what you and I might hope for.

Bush is not perfect. I don’t like his immigration policy and I hated the medicare medicine policy program.20/20 hindsight shows that there has been errors in the prosecution of the war. what a shock! a war with mistakes, that has never happened before. But I do admire how he has stayed the course with the Iraq war when he could pull out and score temporary political points. I don’t think Bush is a poll driven, finger to the wind Clinton clone. If Scalia was President with a filibuster proof majority then SCOTUS nominations would be easy. Bush does not have that. You could be right. But I believe that he wants the same type of judge that you do. Roberts is a well known by people who are close to him. Many of them are strict construtionists. Getting his first nomination thru is vital.

Kevin Peters

Jul 21, 2005 - 1:43 pm 93. flenser:

ed

“I’m not assured that Roberts won’t be another O’Connor or Souter or Stevens or Kennedy.”

Given that you rather vocally left the Republican party (several times now if I’m not mistaken) why should anyone care about whether you are assured or not?

You don’t get a say, ed. Bugger off.

Jul 21, 2005 - 2:01 pm 94. Katherine:

Knuck,

Were you there, too? Damn, with all that covert stuff going on one cannot even recognize oneís friends!

This year I am going wear a fedora. If all Rogerís acolytes do the same we will not be able to miss one other, even in disguise.

Jul 21, 2005 - 2:15 pm 95. Orson2:

Asked above “who would I choose?” to be on the Supremes?

As a pro-choice libertarian, Randy Barnett comes first. But I’m well aware of how removed from originalist roots Roe was! I’m very open to kicking it back to the states as pro-lifers would do. Thus, Edith Clement Jones (or have I screwed up her name?) from Lousiana would have pleased me, as would Janice Rogers Brown (see her Catholic University commencement address http://www.constitution.org/col/jrb/03524_jrb_cua.htm) – in fact, anyone in the Thomas mold.

Thomas is my favorite sitting Justice – but then, we knew what we were getting (see his interview http://reason.com/cthomasint.shtml). Scalia comes close – but again, like O’Conner, I’m convinced he’d rather conserve the warped statist prerogatives to our overlords and masters that the overweening progressives leave us, rather than stake out truely originalist legal grounds. Refusal to “legislate from the bench” without the Framers vision means forever upholding the 20th century socialism they never imagined. As Kelo showed, Scalia defers to legislators powers that the Founders found odious.

In short, ANYONE with a vision of the constitution as a bulwark for the people’s liberty and against unlimited government. Nily willy, Roberts just might have this. However, I have no reason except blind assurances to believe it.

As Ann Coulter and Randy Barnett put it, if you’ve got political control of three branches of government and you can’t confidently put a known partisan for American liberty to sit among its guardians, then what is leadership of the Republican relignment achieving? Rearranging the deck chair on the Titanic! – I’m underwhelmed by such pussies.

The Founders vision requires bravery that the Bushies now clearly lack. Perhaps we’re no longer worthy of their legacy and deserve to lose it.

Jul 21, 2005 - 9:31 pm 96. Orson2:

Active membershop in The Federalist Society would have counted against my arguments above.

GW’s Orin Kerr posted it thusly:

Everyone has reported that Roberts is one. Now, it runs out, he isn’t. THIS is bad news to those dismissing Coulter.

The Washington Post reports that John Roberts is not, in fact, a member of the Federalist Society, and he says he never has been.

††This part of the story is particularly funny:

††Upon reflection, some Federalist Society members conceded that they had never actually seen Roberts at meet-and-greets such as the society’s annual black-tie dinner.

††“That’s a good question, let me think. Now that you mention it ó no,” was former Bush Justice Department official Viet Dinh’s response when asked if he had ever spotted Roberts at any Federalist events.

- – - – - -

SO where is everyone’s confidence in Roberts now?

†

Jul 22, 2005 - 3:17 am 97. ed:

Hmmmm.

1. ” In a perfect world you and I might have picked somebody other then Roberts.”

You mean when the Republican party has a majority in the Senate?

2. “Given that you rather vocally left the Republican party (several times now if I’m not mistaken) why should anyone care about whether you are assured or not?”

Actually I left the Republican party once. I joined once, about 25 or so years ago, and left it a few weeks ago. And quite frankly I’m much happier for it as I can view the impending implosion of the Republican party with a bit of detachment and quite a bit of amusement.

*shrug* frankly I couldn’t care less whether you care or not. I’m just pointing out that a great many people are going to look like complete a**holes if Roberts shifts leftward. And the current track record on Supreme Court nominees with no solid philosophy is pretty much 100% in the wrong.

Jul 22, 2005 - 6:01 am 98. Orson2:

Today Charles Krauthammer joins Coulter in dissent over Roberts. Her is “Tabula Rasa” – a blank slate.

John Roberts is obviously a brilliant lawyer with a history of attachment to conservative administrations. On constitutional matters, however, he is a tabula rasa. He’s been an advocate advancing his clients’ opinions and interests. That tells us little. And in just two years as a circuit court judge he’s made no great, or even important, pronouncements. Nor does Roberts have significant speeches or law review articles to his name. If he has a judicial philosophy, we don’t know it. Nor does he…[quoting Roberts DCA hearing as I did above]

. . .

[Observing five paragraphs in the Aroyyo case, where Roberts appears to want to limit the commerce clause to interstate commerce alone, Krathammer continues:]

This is a thin reed on which to hang a constitutional philosophy. But it’s about all we’ve got. Does this portend a justice who will demolish the underpinnings of the regulatory state and seven decades of commerce clause precedent?

Who knows? But I doubt it. Remember, in the most recent commerce clause review, the California marijuana case, even Antonin Scalia, no enemy of the wrecking ball, refused to follow Clarence Thomas in using the case to undermine the very expansive modern interpretation of the commerce clause.

And Roberts is no Scalia. I think.

. . .

[But simultaneously, Roberts is unlikely to go on a pragmatist's odyssey like O'Conner.] My guess? He upholds Roe, purely for reasons of precedent. And very quietly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/21/AR2005072102187.html?nav=hcmodule

———————————

Neither a Scalia nor an O’Conner will Roberts be. Thus, to conservatives and libertarians alike, Roberts is no prize. He’s likely to be a technocratic conservative, more interested in the constitutional law as an end in itself than a bulwark for liberty.

This fits with the estimate of liberal historian at Emory University, David Garrow. No change: Roberts is neither a Thomas nor a Scalia, he averred.

He won’t take the 9th and 10th Amendmends seriously and prune back the commerce clause as any constiutional patriot would. Instead, he’ll simply uphold the statist status quo. No cause of broad principles will animate or ruffle him. Roberts will function as an indifference curve against securing our liberties – the ones the Founders envisioned – and thus cypher rationales for our further capitulation to overweening agressive statism of the past 70 years. (Yawn.)

And therfore even the Philosopher-King himself, an advocate for unlimited New Deal state powers (see Tom G Palmer’s review of his latest book http://www.nationalreview.com/books/palmer200503011045.asp) , University of Chicago Law’s Cass Sunstein, has endorsed Roberts for SCOTUS. When a “conservative” makes your enemies happy, you really ought to wonder.

What we have here is a serious, brilliant man lacking any serious vision for liberty. Bush seriously blew it.

Jul 22, 2005 - 2:14 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: