[NYCFarmboy]

http://www.anncoulter.org/cgi-local/...cgi?article=66


Ann Coulter column on Roberts:

"After pretending to consider various women and minorities for the Supreme Court these past few weeks, President Bush decided to disappoint all the groups he had just ginned up and nominate a white male.

So all we know about him for sure is that he can't dance and he probably doesn't know who Jay-Z is. Other than that, he is a blank slate. Tabula rasa. Big zippo. Nada. Oh, yeah ... We also know he's argued cases before the Supreme Court. Big deal; so has Larry Flynt's attorney.

But unfortunately, other than that that, we don't know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever.

Since the announcement, court-watchers have been like the old Kremlinologists from Soviet days looking for clues as to what kind of justice Roberts will be.

Will he let us vote?

Does he live in a small, rough-hewn cabin in the woods of New Hampshire and avoid "womenfolk"?

Does he trust democracy? Or will he make all the important decisions for us and call them "constitutional rights"?

It means absolutely nothing that NARAL and Planned Parenthood attack him: They also attacked Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Hackett Souter.

The only way a Supreme Court nominee could win the approval of NARAL and Planned Parenthood would be to actually perform an abortion during his confirmation hearing, live, on camera, and preferably a partial-birth one.

It means nothing that Roberts wrote briefs arguing for the repeal of Roe v. Wade when he worked for Republican administrations. He was arguing on behalf of his client, the United States of America. Roberts has specifically disassociated himself from those cases, dropping a footnote to a 1994 law review article that said:

"In the interest of full disclosure, the author would like to point out that as Deputy Solicitor General for a portion of the 1992-'93 term, he was involved in many of the cases discussed below. In the interest of even fuller disclosure, he would also like to point out that his views as a commentator on those cases do not necessarily reflect his views as an advocate for his former client, the United States."

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."

I'm glad to hear the man has a steady work record, but how did this make it to the top of his resume?

Bill Clinton goes around bragging that he passed welfare reform, which was, admittedly, the one public policy success of his entire administration (passed by the Republican Congress). But now apparently Republicans want to pretend we're the party of welfare queens! Soon the RNC will be boasting that Republicans want to raise your taxes and surrender in the war on terrorism, too.

Finally, let's ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That's just unnatural.

By contrast, I held out for three months, tops, before dropping my first rhetorical bombshell, which I think was about Goldwater.

It's especially unnatural for someone who is smart, and there's no question but that Roberts is smart.

If a smart and accomplished person goes this long without expressing an opinion, he'd better be pursuing the Miss America title.

Apparently, Roberts decided early on that he wanted to be on the Supreme Court and that the way to do that was not to express a personal opinion on anything to anybody ever. It's as if he is from some space alien sleeper cell. Maybe the space aliens are trying to help us, but I wish we knew that.

If the Senate were in Democrat hands, Roberts would be perfect. But why on earth would Bush waste a nomination on a person who is a complete blank slate when we have a majority in the Senate!

We also have a majority in the House, state legislatures, state governorships, and have won five of the last seven presidential elections — seven of the last 10!

We're the Harlem Globetrotters now — why do we have to play the Washington Generals every week?

Conservatism is sweeping the nation, we have a fully functioning alternative media, we're ticked off and ready to avenge Robert Bork ... and Bush nominates a Rorschach blot.

Even as they are losing voters, Democrats don't hesitate to nominate reliable left-wing lunatics like Ruth Bader Ginsburg to lifetime tenure on the high court. And the vast majority of Americans loathe her views.

As I've said before, if a majority of Americans agreed with liberals on abortion, gay marriage, pornography, criminals' rights and property rights — liberals wouldn't need the Supreme Court to give them everything they want through invented "constitutional" rights invisible to everyone but People for the American Way. It's always good to remind voters that Democrats are the party of abortion, sodomy and atheism, and nothing presents an opportunity to do so like a Supreme Court nomination.

The Democrats' own polls showed voters are no longer fooled by claims that the Democrats are trying to block "judges who would roll back civil rights." Borking is over.

And Bush responds by nominating a candidate who will allow Democrats to avoid fighting on their weakest ground — substance. He has given us a Supreme Court nomination that will placate no liberals and should please no conservatives.

Maybe Roberts will contravene the sordid history of "stealth nominees" and be the Scalia or Thomas that 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."


my comment:
interesting stuff, agree, disagree?

[awaspaas]

The original attention whore. What the hell is wrong with this lady?

[dreilly1]

If Ms. Coulter doesn't like him, then maybe he's all right after all.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by dreilly1

If Ms. Coulter doesn't like him, then maybe he's all right after all.

Those were my exact thoughts. Actually, based on what I have heard/read about this guy in the last 24 hours I see a slightly right leaning centrist which is ok with me.

[micahgartman]

How can she know "nada" about the guy, but still write a thousand-word article on him?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

[Quoting Ann Coulter]

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."

I'm glad to hear the man has a steady work record, but how did this make it to the top of his resume?

Again, I really have a problem with attributing the position of a client with the personal position of a lawyer. It betrays a lack of understanding of what the role of a lawyer is.

I don't know much about this particular case, and I no longer have a Westlaw account to look it up, but here's what I do know. Coulter is implying that the fact that the client was taken on pro bono means that somehow you can assume that Robert's worked on it for personal reasons. That just isn't the right way to look at it. Pro bono clients of major firms get the same quality of representation as paying clients. It's part of the professional ethos not to treat them any differently. Hogan & Hartson (Roberts' old firm) has a particularly strong commitment to pro bono. They have an entire department dedicated to it, including one full time partner (they rotate). It's something the firm is very proud of.

That department is most likely where this client would have been picked up by the firm. Hogan is kind of a liberal firm, and is true that most of their pro bono projects do lean left. But that has nothing to do with Roberts. A good lawyer will take on a client regardless of his personal views, and give the best representation that he can. Roberts is by all accounts one of the best appellate advocates in the country and headed up Hogan's appellate group. My guess is that Roberts got involved once it went on up to appeal, but probably not before hand because he is an appeals specialist. But once the firm needed an appeals specialist for one of its clients, it is natural that they would have gone to Robert's department. He'd have been a terrible lawyer if he had turned it down based on his political views. So the fact he represented this client (even assuming it is what Coulter implies it is) tells us nothing.

I'm surprised (but a bit disappointed) to see Coulter make that kind of a mistake. She used to be a DOJ attorney and worked in a firm. I'm sure she has done her fair share of representation of clients she maybe disagreed with, or argued positions that weren't her own opinions. It's part of the job. She should know better than this.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

She should know better than this.

She does -- it's subterfuge.

[BlueSky]

What do you get when you cross a horse with a lamp post?

[dreilly1]

Originally Posted by Bluesky

What do you get when you cross a horse with a lamp post?

What does John Kerry have to do with this thread?

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

She should know better than this.

A screaming banshee such as Judge Judy makes $10 million + per year. God knows what Rush makes (his drug dealer might though...). AC might know better than this, but there isn't much profit in being reasonable, fair and intelligent in expressing one's views. She is on the dull edge of controversy.

She was on the cover of Time (or Newsweek, whatever). There's no stopping her now.

BTW, I once saw a pic of her with her iMac. I felt sorry for the poor li'l computer.

[EdGein]

She's an attention whore that makes money by pissing off the left.

Something Rush has been doing for awhile.

Something Lefties have been trying to do to the right for a long time via the media.

Nothing new.

All of it is a big bag of hot air.

Even Ann doesn't take it as seriously as some of you.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by finboy

She does -- it's subterfuge.

Yup. Make it look like the Right doesn't like him, which will make the Left shut up.


Good plan.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by EdGein

Even Ann doesn't take it as seriously as some of you.

That's funny, yet true.

Another funny thing is that she could show up to a debate against anyone here, and she would - without preparation - easily defeat us all. And she still wouldn't be taking it that seriously.

[RAILhead]

[EdGein]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Another funny thing is that she could show up to a debate against anyone here, and she would - without preparation - easily defeat us all. And she still wouldn't be taking it that seriously.

Agreed.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by finboy

She does -- it's subterfuge.

I was thinking about that, but I don't know. Remember that a number of right wing groups came out against Bush's favorite guy, Al Gonzales, before there was a nomination. There's also all of the complaints that "we don't want another Souter" from those same folks. I think there is a genuine sentiment among some Republican constituencies that only a known quantity will do, and this Roberts just isn't known enough.

[pooka]

Mmmmmm.. The gun is sexier than she is..

Beretta.. mmmmm..

[UNTeMac]

I bet she's really bad in the sack too.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by dreilly1

What does John Kerry have to do with this thread?

NO, you are confusing things here. Kerry is a slow moving Ent from LOTR.

Ann is simply a horse faced whore.

[funkboy]

I like how she thinks she's a babe. Sheesh.

She needs to stop. Now.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by dreilly1

If Ms. Coulter doesn't like him, then maybe he's all right after all.

You know, you've got a point there. Anyone who can piss off both liberals and conservatives must be doing something right. At the very least, you know he's not one to blindly follow a party line, and that can only be a good thing in the end. Supreme Court Justices are supposed to be above politics, after all; their duty is to make sure the government says within its Constitutional limits, and that's all.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Millennium

You know, you've got a point there. Anyone who can piss off both liberals and conservatives must be doing something right. At the very least, you know he's not one to blindly follow a party line, and that can only be a good thing in the end. Supreme Court Justices are supposed to be above politics, after all; their duty is to make sure the government says within its Constitutional limits, and that's all.

I dunno, I routinely piss of liberals and conservatives and the end result pretty much seems to be that I just need to avoid political discussion with ...anyone.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Anyone who can piss off both liberals and conservatives must be doing something right. At the very least, you know he's not one to blindly follow a party line, and that can only be a good thing in the end.

We don't know that at all. He may be a Souter (a Republican appointee who turns out to be liberal) or he may be a Scalia (very conservative). That's why some conservatives don't like him - they feel that, because Republicans own the government right now, Bush should have appointed a sure thing. We have no idea if he's really going to be an "independent."

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

I dunno, I routinely piss of liberals and conservatives and the end result pretty much seems to be that I just need to avoid political discussion with ...anyone.

[NYCFarmboy]

robert byrd praises roberts:


http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...5719-6891r.htm

Sen. Byrd praises Bush on nominee
By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
July 22, 2005

Sen. Robert C. Byrd, one of President Bush's harshest critics, has become an unlikely ally on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge John G. Roberts Jr.
"I said to him, 'I am shouting your name from the steeple tops for reaching out, reaching across the aisle,'?" the West Virginia Democrat reported after taking a phone call from Mr. Bush to discuss a replacement for retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
After Mr. Bush nominated federal Judge Roberts this week, Mr. Byrd again issued a statement praising the president. "I thank President Bush for reaching out to senators on both sides of the aisle as he worked to select a nominee for the court," Mr. Byrd said. "I hope that this bipartisan cooperation will continue as the confirmation process begins."
The senator's praise of Mr. Bush is turnaround from a year ago when the West Virginian accused Mr. Bush of being a "green and arrogant president" who went to war before exhausting diplomacy.
During much of the presidential campaign, liberals turned to Mr. Byrd as an eloquent and bombastic critic of the war in Iraq and Mr. Bush in general. Mr. Byrd's speeches on the Senate floor became rallying cries for Democrats, and the liberal activist group MoveOn.org featured the senator as a speaker and used him to raise money.
Mr. Byrd embraced the same judicial philosophy as the president in his memoir, "Child of the Appalachian Coalfields," released earlier this summer. In the book, he repeatedly blamed "liberal judges" and "activist judges" for many of the nation's problems.
"One's life is probably in no greater danger in the jungles of deepest Africa than in the jungles of America's large cities," he writes. "In my judgment, much of the problem has been brought about by the mollycoddling of criminals by some of the liberal judges who have been placed on the nation's courts in recent years."
Mr. Byrd essentially endorsed Mr. Bush's primary stated strategy for picking Judge Roberts and other judicial nominees. "The high court's share of the responsibility for our increasing lawlessness lies in two areas -- its zeal for bringing about precipitous social change, and its overconcern for the rights of criminals and its underconcern for the rights and safety of society," he writes.
Mr. Byrd detailed the advice he has given presidents about the importance of naming conservatives and strict constructionists to the bench.
"I urged President Nixon to appoint conservative jurists to the court," he recalls in the book. "I said that such a return to a conservative philosophy would be 'the greatest single service President Nixon could perform for his country.' I said that the court had hurt the United States with its rulings on school prayer and in criminal cases, and had given aid and comfort to subversives by refusing to bar communists from schools and defense plants."
Mr. Byrd is up for re-election next year in a state that Mr. Bush won last year by 13 percentage points despite heavy campaigning by Democrats.
A poll conducted in May shows Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, West Virginia Republican, three points behind Mr. Byrd even though Mrs. Capito hasn't announced that she will run against the old-guard senator.
"For Senator Byrd, desperate times require desperate measures," said Brian Nick, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. "As recent polling shows him below 50 percent and in a dead heat against a prospective opponent, he'll apparently try anything."

[glideslope]

Conservatives will not be happy with Roberts 5 years down the road. To Neo-Cons this will be known as "The Other Bush's Mistake."

He drives a HONDA for cripe sake!!! Carl Rove drives a Ford.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by glideslope

Conservatives will not be happy with Roberts 5 years down the road. To Neo-Cons this will be known as "The Other Bush's Mistake."

He drives a HONDA for cripe sake!!! Carl Rove drives a Ford.

well if the UAW finds this out they will surely protest his nomination.

[Darthmaul4114]

why the **** do you read ann coulter? she's such a (insert any combination of swearword adjectives here) dumbass

[Railroader]

If it pisses off the liberals it must be truthful/good.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by Railroader

If it pisses off the liberals it must be truthful/good.

Priceless... I'm a liberal.
War pisses me off.
Murder pisses me off.
Abuse in general pisses me off.
Terrorism pisses me off.

So Railroader says all those things are truthful/good.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by AKcrab

Priceless... I'm a liberal.
War pisses me off.
Murder pisses me off.
Abuse in general pisses me off.
Terrorism pisses me off.

So Railroader says all those things are truthful/good.

Do liberals usually read far too much into everything like you do?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Do liberals usually read far too much into everything like you do?

Do you always use such faulty logic when making such general statements as "If it pisses off the liberals it must be truthful/good"?

That is a broad, blanket statement, Kilbey. Alaska doesn't need to read anything into it when you make such sweeping generalizations. If you don't want to be called on on your sweeping generalizations, don't make them.

[Darthmaul4114]

Originally Posted by Railroader

If it pisses off the liberals it must be truthful/good.

where is the logic in that?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Do you always use such faulty logic when making such general statements as "If it pisses off the liberals it must be truthful/good"?

That is a broad, blanket statement, Kilbey. Alaska doesn't need to read anything into it when you make such sweeping generalizations. If you don't want to be called on on your sweeping generalizations, don't make them.

Originally Posted by Darthmaul4114

where is the logic in that?

I was discussing the Ann Coulter article. I was being coy. If anyone takes Ann Coulter seriously then they deserve to feel insecure about their beliefs.

You guys are funny. And not in a good way.

[Darthmaul4114]

Originally Posted by AKcrab

Priceless... I'm a liberal.
War pisses me off.
Murder pisses me off.
Abuse in general pisses me off.
Terrorism pisses me off.

So Railroader says all those things are truthful/good.

qft