Is Roberts RIGHT for SCOTUS?
Anne Coulter apparently says NO.
FIGHT — FROM THE RIGHT: COULTER SAYS BUSH PICK WRONG
“We don’t know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever… Oh, yeah…we know he’s argued cases before the supreme court. big deal; so has Larry Flynt’s attorney.”
So declares conservative columnist Ann Coulter in a new dispatch set for release.
Coulter continues: 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.â€
This would have been the legal equivalent, after O.J.’s acquittal, of Johnnie Cochran saying, “hey, I never said the guy was innocent. I was just doing my job.”
And it makes no difference that conservatives in the White House are assuring us Roberts can be trusted. We got the exact same assurances from officials working for the last president Bush about David Hackett Souter. I believe their exact words were, “Read our lips; Souter’s a reliable conservative.”
From the theater of the absurd category, the Republican National Committee’s “talking points†on Roberts provide this little tidbit:
“In the 1995 case of Barry v. Little, Judge Roberts argued—free of charge—before the D.C. Court of Appeals on behalf of a class of the neediest welfare recipients, challenging a termination of benefits under the District’s Public Assistance Act of 1982.â€
I’m glad to hear the man has a steady work record, but how did this make it to the top of his resume?
Finally, lets ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That’s just unnatural.
If a smart and accomplished person goes this long without expressing an opinion, they’d better be pursuing the Miss America title.
John Roberts: A home run for the president, the SCOTUS, and for the United States.
Judge John Roberts may be the smartest lawyer I have known, and he combines that intellect with a graciousness and good humor that will make it hard for any except the most extreme ideologues to oppose him. Here’s his bio, but it cannot fully convey the great intellectual force which Justice Roberts will bring to the SCOTUS.
Full disclosure: Judge Roberts and I were colleagues in the White House Counsel’s Office in 1985/1986. A colleague of his from his Hogan & Hartson days, Dan Poneman, was a guest on the program earlier and a transcript of that conversation will be posted at Radioblogger.com. Poneman is a center-left specialist on national security issues, having served both the first President Bush and President Clinton on the NSC. Poneman’s enthusiasm for the Roberts nomination will be mirrored across official Washington which will have a very hard time summoning any energy to smear as well regarded and liked man as Judge Roberts.
For now, Flap will take Hugh’s recommendation. He knows and has worked with the man.
The President has made a fine choice for the Supreme Court.
Michelle Malkin has SCOTUS WATCH: ANN WEIGHS IN
Trust you’ve seen the Drudge flash on fearless Ann Coulter’s comments about John Roberts. Ann’s full piece is up at her website.
It’s titled “Souter in Roberts clothing,” and concludes:
He has given us a Supreme Court nomination that will placate no liberals and should please no conservatives.
Maybe Roberts will contravene the sordid history of “stealth nominees†and be the Scalia or Thomas 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.
Guess Manuel Miranda was wrong when he wrote last night for the WSJ: “Conservatives around the country went to sleep happy.” (Sentiment echoed by less-informed CNN’s John King.)
Things suddenly got very interesting.
***
Related:
Blogs for Bush rounds-up conservative blogger reax to Roberts here. Among those sharing the skeptical view:
GOPBloggers
Dan Flynn at Flynn Files, who writes:
Republicans have tried the blank slate route before. That’s the Supreme Court pick whose opinions are unknown–perhaps even to himself. What did it get the GOP? David Souter, for one. President Bush has twice been elected president, and his party controls 55 Senate seats. If he really is a social conservative–let’s face it, this is all about Roe v. Wade–why should he operate from a position of weakness and nominate a consensus candidate? While Roberts is neither the consensus candidate nor 2005’s David Souter, his views on Roe v. Wade, at least, are unknown. Is a crapshoot the best conservatives can do? On the other hand, the Democrats refused to confirm him when George H.W. Bush nominated him to the bench, and took two years to confirm him when George W. Bush nominated him to the DC Court of Appeals. Perhaps the Democrats know something that we don’t. Time will tell.
***
Previous:
SCOTUS Watch: Hyperventilation and sighs of relief
SCOTUS Watch: Roberts file
Technorati Tags: Anne Coulter, John Roberts, Supreme Court