Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/5/2005 9:49:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/5/2005 9:54:07 PM EDT by NYPatriot]
... but she's just "Bush bashing", right?


READ MY LIPS: NO NEW LIBERALS
by Ann Coulter
August 3, 2005

In retrospect, I deeply apologize for all the nasty things I've said about the people responsible for putting David Souter on the Supreme Court. Compared to what we know about John Roberts, Souter was a dream nominee.

As New Hampshire attorney general in 1977, Souter opposed the repeal of an 1848 state law that made abortion a crime even though Roe v. Wade had made it irrelevant, predicting that if the law were repealed, New Hampshire "would become the abortion mill of the United States."
He filed a brief arguing that the state should not have to pay for poor women to have abortions — or, as the brief called it, "the killing of unborn children" and the "destruction of fetuses." At this point the only people more opposed to abortion than Souter were still in vitro.

Also as state attorney general, Souter defended the governor's practice of lowering the flag to half-staff on Good Friday, arguing that "lowering of the flag to commemorate the death of Christ no more establishes a religious position on the part of the state or promotes a religion than the lowering of the flag for the death of Hubert Humphrey promotes the cause of the Democratic Party in New Hampshire."

Wait, seriously — who is that guy on the Supreme Court and what has he done with the real David Souter?

Souter vowed in a newspaper interview to "do everything we can to uphold the law" allowing public school children to recite the Lord's Prayer every day.

As a justice on the New Hampshire Supreme Court, Souter dismissively referred to abortion as something "necessarily permitted under Roe v. Wade" — not exactly the "fundamental right" he seems to think it is now.
In a private speech — not a brief on behalf of a client — Souter attacked affirmative action, calling it "affirmative discrimination."
Souter openly proclaimed his support for the "original intent" in interpreting the Constitution.
The fact that Souter decided — like Warren, Brennan, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor and Kennedy — that he would prefer to be a Philosopher King rather than a judge once he got on the court doesn't mean you never can tell with any of these guys. It means you have to find judges who wake up every morning: (1) thinking about the right answers to legal questions; and (2) chortling about how much his latest opinion will tick off the left.

We had a pretty good idea what kind of justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas were going to be. Scalia had spoken at the very first symposium of the Federalist Society as a young law professor — before it became a felony to do so — and served as faculty adviser to the group. (By contrast, Roberts is running from the Federalist Society like a 9-year-old boy running from Neverland Ranch.)

Before becoming a judge, Thomas had spent 10 years on the editorial advisory board of the Lincoln Review, a black conservative publication that ran articles comparing abortion to murder. He had given a speech praising an article by Lewis Lehrman calling abortion a "holocaust" that should be outlawed without exception. (There were even rumors, never proven, that during his law studies Thomas had actually read the Constitution.)

That's the sort of nominee we were hoping for! This wasn't a paper trail; it was more like a paper superhighway.

Compare that to the principal evidence cited to prove Roberts' conservative bona fides: As a judge, he upheld the arrest of a girl for eating french fries on a subway even though he disagreed with the policy. Well, there's a hot-button issue! (And if he's so conservative, why didn't he call them "freedom fries"?)

Oh yes, and I quote: "He loves his children."

I gather that last boast is supposed to be some sort of signal about his position on abortion. (If he were pro-choice, they would have said, "He loves all of his children who survived gestation.") I don't give a rat's behind whether the guy is pro-life, whether his wife is pro-life, whether he used to be pro-life, whether he will become pro-life, etc. That tells us how he would vote as a state legislator. He isn't being nominated for state legislator.

The relevant question for a prospective justice, and it can be asked properly either by a president or a senator, is: "What, in your view, is the legal force of a Supreme Court opinion?" If Roberts believes that Supreme Court opinions are law of some kind, all is lost.

Now comes the news that Roberts says he respects "precedent" — which is another way of saying: We can count on Roberts to uphold the court's previous unconstitutional findings.

It doesn't help to have someone who thinks that, as an original matter, the Constitution says nothing about state abortion laws if he is then going to "balance" the law against "the integrity of the institution," "public confidence in our system of justice," "the need for stability and predictability," "the sweet mystery of life," blah blah blah. The problem with establishment types is precisely that they worry about everything except the law. Just get the law right and shut up.

Link Posted: 8/5/2005 9:51:46 PM EDT
I completely agree with her, we dont know enough about Roberts
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 9:57:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/5/2005 9:58:47 PM EDT by NYPatriot]
And what's really disturbing is that she wrote this article BEFORE this little gem came to light: Roberts Donated Help to Gay Rights Case
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 10:11:52 PM EDT

Now comes the news that Roberts says he respects "precedent" — which is another way of saying: We can count on Roberts to uphold the court's previous unconstitutional findings.


This bugs me most of all. No, the Supreme Court is NOT supposed to be about "precdents", it's supposed to be about taking laws and seeing if they are CONSTITUTIONAL!!!!! This bullcrap idea is why we're in the mess we are.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 10:29:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/5/2005 10:48:37 PM EDT by NYPatriot]
I find it really interesting that the "Bush is infailable" crowd around here (Absolut, LarryG, RikWriter, etc...) has nothing to say now that we actually have a little insight into Robert's jurisprudence.

I guess the cat has their tongues?
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 10:32:12 PM EDT
Nobody really knows how John Roberts will turn out. George Bush does not know, he just chickened out and picked a professional member of the legal establishment so as not pick a fight with the libs. The problem is that the legal establishment has it's head up it's ass.

The Christian Right supplied GWB with the presidency and both houses of Congress, for the express purpose of reigning in the Supreme Court. He is not repaying that debt.

Roberts may turn out great. But Bush decided to pick an easy but ultimately risky course, because he did not want to spend the political capital to appoint a known conservative to the court.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 10:36:20 PM EDT
BTW, I hope the left pulls no punches and attempts to crucify Roberts. I think their treatment of Thomas gave him a deep and abiding hatred of the left, much to our benefit; I think that kind of experience would do Roberts some good.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 10:37:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NYPatriot:
What I find really interesting is that "Bush is infailable" crowd around here (Absolut, LarryG, RikWriter, etc...) has nothing to say now that we actually have a little insight into Robert's jurisprudence.

I guess the cat has their tongues?



I think he's got different ideas.....Who cares? One would hope he's somewhat able to make descisions...

The pres has his choice. Reps had to put up with this crap during Clinton, Dems can suckit down too.

Ha ha ha...It's like you people think that a judge supports your constitutiuonal rights!
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 10:38:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/5/2005 10:39:35 PM EDT by NYPatriot]

Originally Posted By imposter:
Nobody really knows how John Roberts will turn out. George Bush does not know, he just chickened out and picked a professional member of the legal establishment so as not pick a fight with the libs. The problem is that the legal establishment has it's head up it's ass.

The Christian Right supplied GWB with the presidency and both houses of Congress, for the express purpose of reigning in the Supreme Court. He is not repaying that debt.

Roberts may turn out great. But Bush decided to pick an easy but ultimately risky course, because he did not want to spend the political capital to appoint a known conservative to the court.



Of course he didn't spend it on his Supreme Court nominee... he needs to save it for his upcoming fight to grant amnesty to illegal aliens!
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 10:55:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NYPatriot:

Originally Posted By imposter:
Nobody really knows how John Roberts will turn out. George Bush does not know, he just chickened out and picked a professional member of the legal establishment so as not pick a fight with the libs. The problem is that the legal establishment has it's head up it's ass.

The Christian Right supplied GWB with the presidency and both houses of Congress, for the express purpose of reigning in the Supreme Court. He is not repaying that debt.

Roberts may turn out great. But Bush decided to pick an easy but ultimately risky course, because he did not want to spend the political capital to appoint a known conservative to the court.



Of course he didn't spend it on his Supreme Court nominee... he needs to save it for his upcoming fight to grant amnesty to illegal aliens!



[GRRRR!!] OOOoo, that pisses me off!
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 11:12:38 PM EDT
Once again I really dont give a flying frack about gay rights issues and the like. I dont believe they have anything coming but it's certainly not a make it or break it issue. I care about how he is on 2A and immigration and the international law governing the US. Answer those and I'll start to care.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 11:23:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/6/2005 12:30:06 AM EDT by NYPatriot]

Originally Posted By Mr45auto:
Once again I really dont give a flying frack about gay rights issues and the like. I dont believe they have anything coming but it's certainly not a make it or break it issue. I care about how he is on 2A and immigration and the international law governing the US. Answer those and I'll start to care.



Friend, you need to look past the "gay" issue & realize that this is NOT really about "Homosexual rights" - it's about strict constitutional Constructivism and believing in the limited power of the Federal government and the Courts in matters not explicitly delegated to them by the Constitution. "Romer v. Evans" is a prime example of an activist court undermining states rights & completely ignoring the will of the people who live in that state, and guess what... Robert's work on this case played a pivotal role in persuading the court to rule the way it did.

It's VERY unsettling that in the only tangible example of how he might rule as a Supreme Court justice, Roberts wound up siding AGANIST Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas. You know... the justices who are supposed to be Robert's ideological peers on the court.

Get it now?

Link Posted: 8/5/2005 11:28:29 PM EDT
I do much prefer a strict constructionist, I wish they were all like Scalia and Thomas. I really want to see something about his 2A views though. This is what is most important to ME.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 2:45:51 AM EDT
Ann makes some great points, as usual. But I'm still not overly concerned about Roberts.

Some of you folks seem to be 100% positive that Roberts will be a huge mistake. I'm not 100% positive that he'll be a good justice but I am optimistic.

The president has demonstrated that he is a man of his word and conviction. He's not perfect but he's a lot better than the majority of politicians I've seen during my lifetime. He's certainly better than most of the current crop.

Bush has shown that his faith is very strong. He has made the nomination of supreme court justices one of the main points of his campaign. Some may think that was just a ploy to get votes from the pro-life crowd but I think that Bush really wants to change the makeup of the court. His big concern is abortion and Roe v. Wade. Even if you disagree with his position on abortion, or if you don't care about the subject at all, a court that would side with Bush's views on abortion would most likely also side with us on 2nd amendment issues (i.e.: an original constructionist view.)

Ms. Coulter is frustrated because she doesn't know enough about Roberts. So are we. However, I would think that the Bush administration has a lot more information on Roberts than we are privy to. Dubya saw what the Souter nomination did to his father. He ain't about to make the same mistake as his dad. He's learned from his father's mistakes. If you want an example, compare how the two waged wars in Iraq.

As for the anxiety caused by the reports that Roberts did pro bono work in Romer v. Evans, that doesn't bother me either. Where did the first report originate? The L. A. Times. I don't expect that rag to print balanced articles on gun issues, why would I expect this piece on Roberts to be unbiased?

Roberts only did several hours of work on the case - at the request of his employer. The L. A. Times article makes it sound like Roberts was the main force in the case. Roberts was asked by a superior to do the work on the case. This article from the Washington Times presents some more info on the situation.

Some folks here have said that Roberts didn't have to accept the task. Rubbish. You don't advance at a high-powered law firm by saying "no" when asked to work on a case. Even in my own non-lawyerly occupation, I've never turned down a request for help from a co-worker or an employer.

Finally, Bush most likely is banking on the probability that Rehnquist will retire soon. And there's a possibility that Stevens may also retire. Those openings would allow Bush to nominate one or two other justices. If he were to put up a firebrand conservative for this opening, it would end up in a knockdown fight with the libs in the senate. If Bush were to nominate someone who we liked, then Teddy, Chuckie and their pals would find plenty of ammo to smear him or her with. It wouldn't have to be anything negative. The dems and the media could harp on something insignificant and give the impression of a scandal. Remember the Thomas hearings? Remember Bork? Having a huge battle for this first nominee would set the pace for succeeding openings on the court and cast a shadow on future nominees.

Conversely, choosing a "clean slate" like Roberts will set the tone for smoother sailing in the coming openings on the court. The democrats will attack Roberts but end up losing and looking foolish for overreacting. That will weaken their efficacy during the next battle over a nominee. It'll be harder to frighten voters into calling their senators after one round of the "little boy crying wolf" routine.

Remember the great wringing of hands leading up to the election? A lot of people were nervous as heck, saying that Bush was going to lose. The same people stressed out in the days before the AWB sunset. I think part of Bush's "strategery" is to appear weak so that he will give a false sense of security to his opponents. Unfortunately, his supporters sometimes tend to fall for the weak act also. The doom & gloom chorus was wrong on those previous occasions. Let's hope that they're wrong on Roberts too.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 3:10:58 AM EDT
Picking Supremes can be like shooting craps. Roberts = snake eyes. But who knows at this point? My main concern would be that Jorge picked him. Little confidence there.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 3:40:27 AM EDT
I'm still scratching my heard over why he didnt pick JR Brown. It seemed like the perfect strategy and choice.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 3:41:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NYPatriot:
... but she's just "Bush bashing", right?


READ MY LIPS: NO NEW LIBERALS
by Ann Coulter
August 3, 2005

In retrospect, I deeply apologize for all the nasty things I've said about the people responsible for putting David Souter on the Supreme Court. Compared to what we know about John Roberts, Souter was a dream nominee.

As New Hampshire attorney general in 1977, Souter opposed the repeal of an 1848 state law that made abortion a crime even though Roe v. Wade had made it irrelevant, predicting that if the law were repealed, New Hampshire "would become the abortion mill of the United States."
He filed a brief arguing that the state should not have to pay for poor women to have abortions — or, as the brief called it, "the killing of unborn children" and the "destruction of fetuses." At this point the only people more opposed to abortion than Souter were still in vitro.

Also as state attorney general, Souter defended the governor's practice of lowering the flag to half-staff on Good Friday, arguing that "lowering of the flag to commemorate the death of Christ no more establishes a religious position on the part of the state or promotes a religion than the lowering of the flag for the death of Hubert Humphrey promotes the cause of the Democratic Party in New Hampshire."

Wait, seriously — who is that guy on the Supreme Court and what has he done with the real David Souter?

Souter vowed in a newspaper interview to "do everything we can to uphold the law" allowing public school children to recite the Lord's Prayer every day.

As a justice on the New Hampshire Supreme Court, Souter dismissively referred to abortion as something "necessarily permitted under Roe v. Wade" — not exactly the "fundamental right" he seems to think it is now.
In a private speech — not a brief on behalf of a client — Souter attacked affirmative action, calling it "affirmative discrimination."
Souter openly proclaimed his support for the "original intent" in interpreting the Constitution.
The fact that Souter decided — like Warren, Brennan, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor and Kennedy — that he would prefer to be a Philosopher King rather than a judge once he got on the court doesn't mean you never can tell with any of these guys. It means you have to find judges who wake up every morning: (1) thinking about the right answers to legal questions; and (2) chortling about how much his latest opinion will tick off the left.

We had a pretty good idea what kind of justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas were going to be. Scalia had spoken at the very first symposium of the Federalist Society as a young law professor — before it became a felony to do so — and served as faculty adviser to the group. (By contrast, Roberts is running from the Federalist Society like a 9-year-old boy running from Neverland Ranch.)

Before becoming a judge, Thomas had spent 10 years on the editorial advisory board of the Lincoln Review, a black conservative publication that ran articles comparing abortion to murder. He had given a speech praising an article by Lewis Lehrman calling abortion a "holocaust" that should be outlawed without exception. (There were even rumors, never proven, that during his law studies Thomas had actually read the Constitution.)

That's the sort of nominee we were hoping for! This wasn't a paper trail; it was more like a paper superhighway.

Compare that to the principal evidence cited to prove Roberts' conservative bona fides: As a judge, he upheld the arrest of a girl for eating french fries on a subway even though he disagreed with the policy. Well, there's a hot-button issue! (And if he's so conservative, why didn't he call them "freedom fries"?)

Oh yes, and I quote: "He loves his children."

I gather that last boast is supposed to be some sort of signal about his position on abortion. (If he were pro-choice, they would have said, "He loves all of his children who survived gestation.") I don't give a rat's behind whether the guy is pro-life, whether his wife is pro-life, whether he used to be pro-life, whether he will become pro-life, etc. That tells us how he would vote as a state legislator. He isn't being nominated for state legislator.

The relevant question for a prospective justice, and it can be asked properly either by a president or a senator, is: "What, in your view, is the legal force of a Supreme Court opinion?" If Roberts believes that Supreme Court opinions are law of some kind, all is lost.

Now comes the news that Roberts says he respects "precedent" — which is another way of saying: We can count on Roberts to uphold the court's previous unconstitutional findings.

It doesn't help to have someone who thinks that, as an original matter, the Constitution says nothing about state abortion laws if he is then going to "balance" the law against "the integrity of the institution," "public confidence in our system of justice," "the need for stability and predictability," "the sweet mystery of life," blah blah blah. The problem with establishment types is precisely that they worry about everything except the law. Just get the law right and shut up.




Getting upset over nothing. You have no guarantee how these people are going to vote ounce on the court. I have better things to do than get upset over John Roberts.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 7:58:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NYPatriot:
We had a pretty good idea what kind of justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas were going to be. Scalia had spoken at the very first symposium of the Federalist Society as a young law professor — before it became a felony to do so — and served as faculty adviser to the group. (By contrast, Roberts is running from the Federalist Society like a 9-year-old boy running from Neverland Ranch.)




Why is it a felony to speak at the federalist society?
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 8:01:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By callgood:
Picking Supremes can be like shooting craps. Roberts = snake eyes. But who knows at this point? My main concern would be that Jorge picked him. Little confidence there.



That's a shitty idea if I've ever heard
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 8:01:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NYPatriot:
I find it really interesting that the "Bush is infailable" crowd around here (Absolut, LarryG, RikWriter, etc...) has nothing to say now that we actually have a little insight into Robert's jurisprudence.

I guess the cat has their tongues?



Not really. just more of your same old drivel with no basis in FACT. Same shit, different day. No proof of anything. Just another excuse to bash Bush. That's all this is about.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 8:03:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By callgood:
Picking Supremes can be like shooting craps. Roberts = snake eyes. But who knows at this point? My main concern would be that Jorge picked him. Little confidence there.



Who is Jorge?
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 8:03:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NYPatriot:
I find it really interesting that the "Bush is infailable" crowd around here (Absolut, LarryG, RikWriter, etc...) has nothing to say now that we actually have a little insight into Robert's jurisprudence.

I guess the cat has their tongues?



Not that, it's just too damn late to do anything about it. All we can do now is watch and
hope it's not as bad as we think it will be.

Bush screwed the pooch here, and we'll all feel it for a long time I'm afraid.

But debate is over, he's nominated and will be confirmed.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 8:04:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By callgood:
Picking Supremes can be like shooting craps. Roberts = snake eyes. But who knows at this point? My main concern would be that Jorge picked him. Little confidence there.



Who is Jorge?



Jorge Bush, El Presidente Fox's step brother.

I'm as pro Bush as it gets except for these 2 things, Roberts on the SC and his stupid
moronic immigration policy. He should know better on both of these.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 8:09:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By jblachly:

Originally Posted By NYPatriot:
We had a pretty good idea what kind of justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas were going to be. Scalia had spoken at the very first symposium of the Federalist Society as a young law professor — before it became a felony to do so — and served as faculty adviser to the group. (By contrast, Roberts is running from the Federalist Society like a 9-year-old boy running from Neverland Ranch.)




Why is it a felony to speak at the federalist society?



That was a tongue-in-cheek comment, I think. The Federalist Society has been branded as an ultra-right-wing whacko fringe group by liberals and the media. Any association with them will "taint" your record and turn the libs against you. I've seen their website, and I don't see a problem with them. Unless it's just a part of the left's war on individuality.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 8:09:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/6/2005 8:25:48 AM EDT by TacticalMan]

Link Posted: 8/6/2005 8:15:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By callgood:
Picking Supremes can be like shooting craps. Roberts = snake eyes. But who knows at this point? My main concern would be that Jorge picked him. Little confidence there.



Who is Jorge?



Good old Jorge Bush of course.
I figure with as much aztlan ass as he kisses he should use his alias.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 8:40:35 AM EDT
Rush Limbaugh has hit the nail on the head over the past week regarding Roberts and this news coming out about gay rights.

Have any of you looked to see who brought forth this information? Democrats!

Think people. They know that there's no way they can block Roberts. So the dems are attempting to turn Christian Conservatives against him. They hope we'll do what they know they can't...create a big fuss over this nomination.

The dems think all Republicans are evil gay haters. They think this news will create a backlash within our own party. And judging by some of the replies in this thread, you're doing just that. The left is trying to play you like a piano. So when you add all of this up, it makes perfect sense.

I for one am not worried about Roberts.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 9:05:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TexasSIG:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By callgood:
Picking Supremes can be like shooting craps. Roberts = snake eyes. But who knows at this point? My main concern would be that Jorge picked him. Little confidence there.



Who is Jorge?



Jorge Bush, El Presidente Fox's step brother.

I'm as pro Bush as it gets except for these 2 things, Roberts on the SC and his stupid
moronic immigration policy. He should know better on both of these.



You know nothing about Roberts, so how do you know he "screwed the pooch"?

The man's name is George, not Jorge. The immigration I don't agree with, but the "jorge" bullshit is moronic, sophomoric bullshit.
Top Top