You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
John Roberts being attacked - from the right and left
2005-07-20
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.”

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."
Well yeah, and it's the correct response. He's a lawyer representing his client. Anne's a smart woman, she should understand that.
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?

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.
and from powerline
Less reasonable, it seems to me, is Ann Coulter's complaint reported by Drudge that Roberts may not really be a conservative. Coulter cites the Souter debacle. But Souter was an unknown from New Hampshire whose conversatism was vouched for by John Sununu (conservative but a politician not an active lawyer) and Warren Rodman (not even a conservative). Roberts has been a player in Washington legal circles, including actively conservative ones, for two decades. He may not be as conservative as a few of the others who reportedly were on Bush's list. And a longer track record as a judge would have been nice. But it's unfair to suggest that Roberts is or will be anything like Souter. A comparison to Rehnquist would be far more apt. Indeed, while Coulter contends that "stealth" nominees "never" work out, I don't recall Rehnquist, plucked by Nixon from the Justice Department, having a more substantial track record than Roberts can point to.
I respect Coulter, but really don't agree with everything she says. Things are already heated up and getting interesting.
Posted by:mmurray821

#10  Finally, lets ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That’s just unnatural.
Ann, he's a smart lawyer. That means he thinks before engaging his mouth. He may have said controversial things, but not on tape or in print. People with a long paper trail tend to be politicians, commentators and university professors. If you are not in that group, you don't have a record that can be used against you.
Posted by: Steve   2005-07-20 14:12  

#9  IANAL, but he'd basically be sitting in review of his own decision. I'd think there's a conflict of interest there. Lawyers may have a different idea, though.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2005-07-20 13:48  

#8  Why, Robert?

Not challenging, just curious.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2005-07-20 13:43  

#7  This WILL be going to the SCOTUS and guess who might be sitting on the bench then?

Sadly, I think he'd have to sit that case out if he was involved in the decision in a lower court.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2005-07-20 13:26  

#6  2b: Is it just me? Because it looks like he's scaring his sister?
Posted by: BigEd   2005-07-20 13:17  

#5  LOL the real reason Bush was smirking when introducing him in the press conference
Posted by: Frank G   2005-07-20 13:03  

#4  Annie C. You are off the reservation on this one...
Posted by: BigEd   2005-07-20 12:44  

#3  Ni-i-i-ice...
Posted by: Seafarious   2005-07-20 12:39  

#2  OOOOO, just found something kewl about Roberts.

“Friends of the court” supporting the terrorist included dozens of law professors, “305 United Kingdom and European Parliamentarians,” “Military Attorneys Detailed to Represent Ali Hamza Amhad Sulayman Al Bahlui,” “Military Law Practitioners and Academicians,” “National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers,” “Human Rights First,” “General Merrill A. McPeak,” “People for the American Way,” “The World Organization for Human Rights USA,” “Urban Morgan Institute for Human Rights”—and, worst of all, the prestigious “Association of the Bar of the City of New York.”



Despite this array of “friends,” the Court of Appeals panel—one of whom was John G. Roberts, Jr., President Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court—reversed Judge Robertson, rejecting his conclusion that Hamdan was covered by the Geneva Convention, which could be enforced in a United States federal court. Robertson had conveniently ignored the Supreme Court precedent of Johnson v. Eisentrager (which the current liberal Court majority massaged, in order to reach its conclusion in Rasul), which held that the Geneva Convention, a compact between governments, was not judicially enforceable in a private lawsuit. Period!

He was one of the justices that struck down the liberal view that the people in club Gitmo have a right to be tried as americans.
This WILL be going to the SCOTUS and guess who might be sitting on the bench then?
BREWHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Posted by: mmurray821   2005-07-20 12:36  

#1  if both the far right and far left don't like him, then he has my vote.
Posted by: 2b   2005-07-20 12:26  

00:00