July 27, 2005

AS WE AWAIT WHITE SMOKE FROM THE ROTUNDA...

Fool me 8 Times, Shame on Me (Ann Coulter, 7/27/05, Universal Press Syndicate)

Like John Roberts, Souter attended church regularly. Souter was also touted for his great intellect. He went to Harvard! And Harvard Law! (Since when does that impress right-wingers? So did Larry Tribe. It is one of the eternal mysteries of the world that liberals are good test-takers.) [...]

Roberts would have been a fine candidate for a Senate in Democratic hands. But now we have 55 Republican seats in the Senate and the vice president to cast a deciding vote -- and Son of Read-My-Lips gives us another ideological blind date.

Fifty-five seats means every single Democrat in the Senate could vote against a Republican Supreme Court nominee -- highly unlikely considering some of those Democrats are up for election next year -- along with John McCain, Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Lincoln Chafee. We would still win.

Of course it's possible that Roberts will buck history -- all known human history when it comes to the Supreme Court -- and be another Scalia or Thomas. (And we'll hear this news while attending a World Series game between the Cubs and, oh, say ... the Detroit Tigers.) [...]

Bush said "Trust me," and Republicans trust him. It shouldn't be difficult for conservatives to convince themselves that Roberts is our man. They've had practice convincing themselves of the same thing with Warren, Brennan, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter.

MORE:

Roberts Would Be Fourth Catholic on Court (Richard N. Ostling, 7/27/05, AP)

If John Roberts is confirmed, he will be the fourth Roman Catholic on the Supreme Court, an all-time high that is focusing attention on how faith might influence law on the high court.

From abortion to capital punishment to physician-assisted suicide, the upcoming term offers plenty of issues in which the Catholic church has strong interest. But history shows a justice's religion does not provide a roadmap for rulings. [...]

Writing in the online edition of the liberal magazine The American Prospect, Roberts foe Adele Stan contended that President Bush was "playing the Catholic card" by nominating Roberts, who would be the 10th Catholic in the court's history.

"Bush is betting he's bought himself some insulation any opposition to Roberts, particularly because of his anti-abortion record, will likely be countered with accusations of anti-Catholicism," she said. [...]

The Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which opposes Roberts, says all indications are "he's on a trajectory dramatically different from the way church-state law has gone the last few decades."

But Lynn also insists that "the issue is entirely his judicial philosophy, not where he goes to church." [...]

There's no question about Roberts' strong Catholic background.

Growing up in Indiana, he attended the Notre Dame grade school in Michigan City and La Lumiere School, a Catholic college preparatory school in LaPorte.

His wife is a graduate of the College of the Holy Cross, where she now serves on the board along with Justice Thomas. She's also a board member of the John Carroll Society, which sponsors a Mass for judges and lawyers at the opening of each Supreme Court term.

Shifty-eyed, faux-conservative Souter clone? Or "Papacy-In-Exile" proponent who hums the Kyrie Eleison in his sleep? Posted by Matt Murphy at July 27, 2005 11:12 PM

Comments

So far, I'm flunking.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at July 27, 2005 11:39 PM

Ann Coulter is fun to read, but who would take anything she writes seriously ?

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at July 27, 2005 11:44 PM

Ann seems to be gunning to become the distaff Pat Buchanan of her generation. Should Hillary win election in 2008, a attempted Coulter entry in politics in the 2012 GOP primary wouldn't surprise me at all.

Posted by: John at July 28, 2005 2:01 AM

Ann is just a political paranoid.

Posted by: jd watson at July 28, 2005 5:36 AM

Ann is doing two things: Giving Democrats an excuse to support Roberts and telling the GOP base they can get what they want. Half her comments are a goof, the other half serious.

Ann is not paranoid. The "Freud Card" is played on her because of one book: "Treason". She brought up names and an issue the left thought settled.

Rabbi Shmuely Boteach will speak at "Justice Sunday" on Aug 14th in support of Roberts. Other speakers will be William Donohue, James Dobson, Zell Miller, Tony Perkins, Chuck Colson, Phyllis Schlafly and Ted Haggard.

From the "Forward" today:

In Judiciary Battle, Conservatives Are Turning to 'Kosher Sex' Rabbi

Posted by: at July 28, 2005 6:08 AM

Ann Coulter is driven by her need for attention. My guess is that when she turns 50 and has long since slid into well-merited obscurity, she'll be doing heavily airbrushed nude photos for Playboy, not unlike other mediocre has-beens like Farrah Fawcett and Suzanne Somers.

Posted by: bart at July 28, 2005 8:46 AM

Her point about the almost inexorable slide to the left by people in Washington is spot on. Politicians who slither can be challenged, either directly at the poll or through reduced contributions or (at the least) hostile questioning. Judges face no challenge, and usually respond with whiny 'thunderbolts' when they are (weren't O'Connor's remarks from a couple of days ago a bit over the top?).

Roberts certainly seems more sound than Souter, who was 'weirder' than Bork from the beginning; also remember that it was the 41 White House doing the vetting - hearing Sununu and his crowd give assurances on someone's philosophy is quite different than the current crew.

Posted by: jim hamlen at July 28, 2005 9:06 AM

Wait until the news that the Godfather of his son is an albino comes out.

Posted by: Luciferous at July 28, 2005 9:23 AM

It's obvious. Rove is paying Coulter to write loonball stuff that will make Roberts look moderate to Kennedy.

I've got the memos from Rather.

Posted by: Casey Abell at July 28, 2005 9:44 AM

"It is one of the eternal mysteries of the world that liberals are good test-takers."

Mystery? Has Ann forgotten who writes the tests?

Posted by: erp at July 28, 2005 9:57 AM

She is probably right with regards to Roberts' future votes on Roe. Roberts has said in the past that Roe should be considered a settled precedent.

Posted by: Robert Duquette at July 28, 2005 11:07 AM

Uh, yeah, that's because for lower court judges, it is. The supreme court is a whole new ballgame. Roe is as settled as Plessy.

Posted by: Timothy at July 28, 2005 11:23 AM

"...Roberts foe Adele Stan contended that President Bush was "playing the Catholic card" by nominating Roberts..."

What a bizarre inversion of reality. Show me anyone in the administration who has said "If you criticize John Roberts, you are anti-Catholic"? That's what playing a "card" means, as I've always understood it.

"But Lynn also insists that "the issue is entirely his judicial philosophy, not where he goes to church." [...]

OK, so why are there so many stories about where he goes to church then?

I truly don't understand what the left is doing here. Do they really think that making such a huge deal about his religion and his wife's religion, for goodness sake, is going to win for them? Perhaps a generation ago, but anti-Popery ain't a winning hand for them these days...

Posted by: at July 28, 2005 11:26 AM

Ugh. The anonymous comment above is mine...

Posted by: b at July 28, 2005 11:28 AM

Robert: Roberts said that Roe should be considered a settled precedent, in the context of a nomination for circut judge. A circut judge is bound to follow settled precedent.

Even so, Roe can be evercerated without being overruled.

Everything I have read about Roberts indicates that he is committed to judicial defference. If so that is good, as it is a key concept that needs to be revived on SCOTUS.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at July 28, 2005 12:58 PM

It is probably a sin but it is fun:

Ask in liberal forums why the corporate media refuses to report Roberts' membership in Opus Dei.

Posted by: David at July 28, 2005 12:58 PM

Never mind!

Posted by: Robert Duquette at July 29, 2005 10:02 AM
« US AND THE SHI'ITES: | Main | MAYBE I'M JUST CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT "STALLED" MEANS: »