I am sorry, but from what I have seen so far, the Democrats are just going to have to do better before they convince me that John Roberts is a bad choice. he seems like a decent man, well-liked, a fair individual, and not the sort of crazed fire-breathing ideologue that might have given me the vapors. In short, they are going to have to do better than Nancy Keenan, President of NARAL Pro-Choice America, did last night:
CARLSON: You all issued a statement today calling Roberts‘ selection, quote, “an unsuitable choice,” on the basis of what did you say that?
KEENAN: Well, absolutely. I think you have to take a look at what he has written in the past and that he had indicated that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. And when 65 percent of the American public said they want to know where the nominee stands, and they want that nominee to uphold Roe, then the American public are very clear, that this is one gentleman that might not do that.
CARLSON: But that was not at all what happened, actually. He was working on behalf of the federal government arguing its case. He was in the Solicitor General‘s Office in a Republican administration. If I worked for the Transportation Department and our policy is to wear your seat belt, it doesn‘t mean I am for seat belt use, I work for an administration whose policy is, if you see the distinction.
KEENAN: Well, but he was a lawyer for this administration, and he wrote those briefs. I mean, I wouldn‘t go to work for George Bush if I wasn‘t in concert with their beliefs.
CARLSON: that‘s because you are the president of NARAL, you‘re an abortion lobbyist. But for many people abortion is but one of many issues, and they can agree to disagree. Bush is—the president himself is surrounded by pro-choice people, almost every woman in his orbit, almost all his female cabinet secretaries, pro-choice, but he is not, if you see what I mean.
KEENAN: Tucker, look, we have Operation Rescue tonight endorsing him. We have Jay Sekulow endorsing tonight. That tells the American people that this is not moderate nominee.
A pretty weak performance, wholly unconvincing, and one most people will be inclined to dismiss. And if we are to judge a nominee by who supports and opposes him/her, we should probably examine this Coulter piece:
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 “women folk”?
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.
So far, NARAL is pissed because they think he might rule against Roe, and Ann Coulter is peeved becuase he may not. Fabulous. This sense of entitlement from everyone is really starting to piss me off, but particularly from the left. You lost the election. You are not going to like anyone the President nominates. The best you can hope for is someone who is fair, and you aren’t even guaranteed that. There is, despite what Rachel Maddow may want, no quota system for the Supreme Court. The President, as far as I can tell, appointed a strong conservative nominee. Not a moderate, not a liberal, but a strong conservative. Just like he said he would during both campaigns, and just like those who voted for him expected he would.
Meanwhile, some internet activists are trying to create their own talking points for the confirmation process, and Americablog leads the charge:
The more I read and the more I hear about Bush’s Supreme Court nominee, the more this guy sounds like a partisan hack. His experience is in politics, partisan politics, it’s not being a judge. Hell, he’s only been a judge for 2 years. That’s hardly the kind of experience that prepares you to be a Supreme Court justice. What Roberts has experience in is being a partisan political operative, the very thing you don’t want on the Supreme Court.
I wonder who Thurgood Marshall voted for? At any rate, that just got the ball rolling, and MYDD takes over:
Roberts is a DC partisan political insider hack operative Republican. He’s basically a politician that, because he lives in DC, cannot run for office anywhere, so he’s become a political Judge instead, fighting to institutionalize the Republican Party within the Federal branch of the government. There’s no doubt about it; but that also makes him likely to be confirmed. DC is a Republican entity.
So there you have it. The biggest complaints from the left seem to be that he may overturn Roe, and that he is a partisan. That really appears to be all they have, and it might be why Schumer and Leahy so clearly looked like they were going through the motions. Put up enough opposition to make it look like we are fighting, but realize the situation is futile. You have seen the end of the Wild Bunch, haven’t you?
At any rate, what do we know about Roberts appointment? Beldar points to this:
No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation. A twelve-year-old girl was arrested, searched, and handcuffed. Her shoelaces were removed, and she was transported in the windowless rear compartment of a police vehicle to a juvenile processing center, where she was booked, fingerprinted, and detained until released to her mother some three hours later — all for eating a single french fry in a Metrorail station. The child was frightened, embarrassed, and crying throughout the ordeal. The district court described the policies that led to her arrest as “foolish,” and indeed the policies were changed after those responsible endured the sort of publicity reserved for adults who make young girls cry. The question before us, however, is not whether these policies were a bad idea, but whether they violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. Like the district court, we conclude that they did not, and accordingly we affirm.
That is what some may recognize as demonstrating a clear understanding of the role of the courts. I can live with that. Liberals can live with that. It is the type of temperament that should be required of all judicial nominees. Tony Perkins, someone I relentlessly monitor and scrutinize and almost never agree with, has it exactly right:
PERKINS: Well, based upon the arguments that he has made, some of the things that he has written, he has argued 39 times before the United States Supreme Court, so clearly this man is very well qualified. You look at his academic background, you look at his experience, and he is by far a top pick for the president.
And it‘s very important that you note in his opinions, and also in his positions that he has taken, he understands the role of the court. And I think that is what is at the heart of this matter, not that we are going to see a quote-unquote “conservative activist” on the court. That‘s not what we are looking for. We are looking for someone who understands the boundaries of the court and respects the role of the legislature as the body that creates public policy.
If that is the true measure of the man, and that is his judicial philosophy, that is acceptable. Scratch that. That is exceptional. I understand that my friends on the left are going to argue that this means he wants to overturn Roe, and I understand that there will be contentious battles about the impact this wil have on established law, but I agree with the basic philosophy. Perkins continues:
Well, I want a Supreme Court justice who will, when a state passes a law, like we did in my home state of Louisiana, when I served there in the legislature, that says partial birth abortion is against the law in our state, or other restrictions abortion, that when it‘s challenged in court and ultimately makes its way to the Supreme Court, that you have a justice there that looks at the facts of the case and realizes that under the Constitution, the state has the right to make those decisions.
That‘s how I see these issues being resolved, not by an activist court legislating in our direction, creating public policy, but by recognizing the proper role of the legislature to do that.
Again, some may claim that this is ressurecting the ‘discredited, state’s rights theories,’ but if nine justices that adhered to that philosophy had been in place when Kelo was decided, I think we all would have liked the outcome a bit more. I think most of us would appreciate the decision a court like that would come to in the recent California medical marijuana case.
Finally, let’s look to what Jeralynn Merritt has to say on the nominee:
I think it’s too soon to start opposing Judge John G. Roberts. Most of us knew nothing about him before tonight. He’s only been a Judge for two years. Before that he was deputy solicitor general. The legal arguments he made while working for the Government or as a corporate lawyer may or may not reflect his personal values, or how he would rule as a Supreme Court Justice.
I’d like to know more about him before I make up my mind. I don’t think it helps that liberal groups are coming out swinging so soon. It has the appearance that they would oppose anyone Bush would nominate.
It’s obvious we’re going to get a conservative Supreme Court nominee. Bush is President and the Senate is Republican-dominated. For now, I’m just happy it wasn’t a rabid right-winger like Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, Edith Jones (not to be confused with Edith Clement, who probably would have been okay,) Ted Olson or one of the Fourth Circuit judges that were reportedly under consideration.
That makes too much damn sense for a blog post.
DwarfRage
Amen John. He’s not who I’d pick, but all in all, he’s better then 90% of the alternatives IMO.
We (The collective we), have given the Republicans power over two branches of the government. Specifically, the two branches who have control of who enters the third (welcome to the joys of checks and balances).
Oh, and for those of who out there who are going to cry “Stolen Election” BS, well, did you take arms and rise up again the state in an effort to bring down the corrupt, illegal system? If you didn’t, I’d say that you have to accept this as a legitimate government, which is doing what legitimate governments do in America appoint judges who they agree with the basic fundamental principles of.
Geek, Esq.
Roberts will get confirmed. He should be questioned to within an inch of his life (insert Alberto Gonzales joke here) but ultimately it’s a Republican Senate and Republican President. Elections have consequences, and this is one. He seems like an honest, sane conservative, as opposed to the Edith Jones variety. Not a great or even okay choice for my side, but that’s what you get for being electoral losers.
sarah
John, I completely agree that this is probably a pretty wise choice on Bush’s part. As a lefty, I actually find little at this point to object to, given the possible options. Of course he’s conservative! Of course he’s not ideal! But as Jeralyn said, the options could have been so so so much worse. Not worth expending political capital over – the public in general will see Democratic efforts to block only as obstructionist.
I just hope, though, that “coulter” you referred to was not Ann Coulter. Are you seriously giving her an inch of space on your site?
BinkyBoy
conservative politicians will never actually overturn Roe v. Wade, what else would they drag out for their extremist constituency when their approval rates drop or they need a bump in election polls?
This is just more awards being handed out for the 2000 election, giving the far right-extremists what they want, and a bonus for corporate America. Without a Rehnquist retirement, however, the balance of the court is only slightly changed, and given the time before impeachment or term-limitations, the balance of the court will be returned somewhere around 2007, barely time enough for him to do too much damage.
Christie S.
I posted this on another blog:
“Hmmm…NARAL got pretty much bashed by the Left when they supported Chaffee instead of his Democratic challenger.
What a lot of people forget is that NARAL is a single-issue PAC. It’s entire focus is protecting Roe V Wade. As such, they are non-partisan. It just so happens that most of the folks actively seeking to protect abortion rights tend to be Democrats…but not always.
NARAL doesn’t speak for Democrats, it speaks for NARAL.”
Their objectives run hand in hand most of the time, but there are exceptions to that rule and the Democrats learned that one, to their chagrin, a while ago.
I just wish all of the pundits, PACs and political noisemakers would just shut up for a while and let the nomination proceed thru the Senate.
And on that note, I’m gone for the day. I need to finish packing. Unless of course, I begin to jones for this site, in which case I will return!
Andrew J. Lazarus
I’m with Jeralyn. Roberts got favorable statements from Seth Waxman and Walter Dellinger when he was named to the Court of Appeals, and unless they’ve changed their minds, it doesn’t sound like we have a caveman here.
Otto Man
I’m on the same page with my fellow liberals here. Roberts is by no means my ideal vision of a jurist, but given a Republican president and a Republican Senate, he’s probably the best we can expect. Certainly not the worst. Nowhere near as bad as Owens, Brown, Luttig or Jones.
In any case, he’s going through.
rilkefan
“This sense of entitlement from everyone is really starting to piss me off, but particularly from the left.”
John, the nomination just came out, and the vast majority of commentary from the left that I’ve seen has been of the form, “Very smart guy, very little experience as a judge to point to, odd that he was involved with Ken Starr and in stealing Florida in 2000, we lost in ’04 but recent gains have left Bush weak and so we’re getting a staunch conservative but a sensible one so let’s ask him some tough questions and confirm him if nothing surprising pops out.” Basically it seems like you’re in the mood to be outraged so are shopping around for an excuse.
Rick
You lost the election. You are not going to like anyone the President nominates.
John,
Some of the John Cole’s Balloon Juice commentariat are so self unaware that this will be received with strenuous throat clearing and objections. If only Death-Spiral Dubya would consult, instead of lie, Florida, Halliburton, DSM, etc. etc.
Carswell and Haynesworth were rejected with more comity that Roberts will get in confirmation.
Cordially…
Suc
Doug
I agree with the analysis of Roberts, much as I find the “elections have consequences, so shut up” line of thought annoying.
First: Roberts — Bush gets to make the choice, so it should be no surprise that Roberts is a Republican. There goes the partisan angle. He has, apparently, no record of personal opinions — judicial or otherwise. We just have briefs written on behalf of clients. That tells us nothing about the judge’s own opinions, really. There goes the anti-Roe v. Wade angle.
Basically, unless some other kind of documentation pops up, we’ll have to take him at his word during his confirmation testimony. And, presuming nothing surprising comes up, the Dems don’t have a real good reason to oppose him. So, my hope is that they’d investigate thoroughly, question him closely, and, absent any surprises, vote him in.
————-
Second, on the “elections have consequences” — I find that annoying because it seems to be suggesting that by voting for Bush, the electorate was necessarily expressing a preference for a pro-life judge. I don’t think you can read anything into Bush’s victory more than more people wanted Bush than wanted Kerry as President. That’s it. That gives Bush the power to nominate, sure enough. But it doesn’t constitute any sort of endorsement of Bush’s nomination.
Sojourner
“If only Death-Spiral Dubya would consult, instead of lie, Florida, Halliburton, DSM, etc. etc.”
3/4 of the American public think Bush is not cooperating on Plamegate. His approval numbers are lower than anybody else’s this early in a second term. But by Rick’s definition, that makes him a winner.
And why shouldn’t he consult with others? Winning an election doesn’t make him god. Too many people have died because of his weaknesses. The American people would be far better served if he compensated for his limitations by including others.
And ultimately isn’t it the president’s job to do the right thing for the country, not just do whatever the hell he wants? Or is it too much to expect him to display real leadership rather than pandering to his small base?
I know, I know. It’s completely unreasonable of me to expect W to behave like a real leader.
JonBuck
Liberal, conservative, I don’t care. I just want him to rule on the basis of the law. And if a law is blatently unConstitutional, that he would justly overturn it.
Retief
Of course the corallary to “you are not going to like anyone the President nominates” is I’m not required to like anyone the President nominates, even if they are smart, friendly, and in the conservative mainstream not the loony fringes. I can accept that this is close to the best we can hope for from Bush and that I don’t see a need to filibuster this fellow, and still think that I’d prefer somebody who hasn’t spent his career arguing right-wing hobbyhorse causes for his right wing masters. And I can be happy if Democrats in the senate use the opportunity to note that if he really does think the Endangered Species Act is unconstitutional, that cannot but make him an “activist judge” and that it puts him, and Bush, outside of the American mainstream if not outside the conservative mainstream. I can accept him but I certainly don’t have to be happy about him or refrain from using him to stake out popular positions he doesn’t hold.
Capriccio
Maybe somebody (ahem) from the “reasonable center” will explain to us all someday what it is that they find so appealing about a Stepford electorate where elections have such consequences as to shut up everyone who has a different opinion. Someone wiser than I once described democracy as a noisy, messy process…and so it is…or it ought to be. The nonstop contentiousness from both corners of the political spectrum strike me as evidence of people who are passionately engaged in the process. The role of the centrist should be as referee…maintaining balance, fairness and making sure nobody hits below the belt. The role of the centrist is not to put the pillow over the face of a boxer (from either side) and smother her.
Rick
Soj.,
Well, you’re reliably unreasonable in all manner of things. So consistantly so, in fact, it might be your hobgoblin.
Cordially…
Arliss
Will you stop repeating that phrase “You lost the election, get over it”.
I can’t wait till we win back the House, then the Senate and President in 2008.
We are going treat you Republiscum EXACTLY like you are treating us now!
Eat shit and die, Scum
db
I wonder what the long term consequences of all this will be.
What do I mean? I mean the consequences of selecting justices who have the smallest records.
I know that we know little about Rogers. And I know that we will know more about him when he starts writing opinions. And I know that I will probably disagree with his stance on most things.
But I do not blame the administration for this. I blame both the right and left for escalating the war of words and threats to this level. So much so that the current president and any future president will have to choose not the best candidate but the candidate with the best papertrial (i.e., no papertrial).
Where does that get us? I would much rather have someone nominated who I know where they stand on things. Even if I oppose him/her on most things, I would be more inclined to support the nomination of such an individual than an individual I know nothing about, so long as that individual is not so far out of the mainstream (to paraphrase from our group of moderate senators). An individual who has no record has a higher probability of being out of the mainstream than someone with a demonstrable record who we would know is to the left or to the right but no record of being out of the mainstream.
ppGaz
Merrit’s blurb coincides with my own views.
You have to hand it to the Bush team, though. This was a brilliant stroke. No better way to expose the weaknesses in the opposition than to put a Roberts out there and let the most rabid opponents howl as if he’d renominated Robert Bork.
And of course, the timing, a prime-time announcement which is pretty unusual to say the least, right in the middle of the Rove fiesta, good politics.
It’s too bad these people are such shitheads, because they are awfully clever. If they could only employ their cleverness to do good, and not evil.
I do not put the Roberts nomination in the latter category. I have no reason not to think he’ll be a good justice, at this time.
Hokie
Roberts is definitely much more palatable than some of the other options; I don’t think he’s a crazed, fire-breathing ideologue, in fact, everything I know about him tells me otherwise. He’s definitely no Scalia, both in terms of ideology and temperament.
He is, however, rather strongly partisan, holding most of his positions in the Reagan and Bush I administrations, and he had been rather active in the Florida recount business (he and Estrada both were). That’s what gives me pause, more than anything else, and it’s why I would probably prefer another conservative of similar temperament to him, if one was in the offing.
But he’s definitely far better than Rodgers Brown or Jones, for example. And I agree with Jeralyn to the extent of “If we shoot him down, what else are we likely to get?” However, I wouldn’t yet give him a pass on what he argued as Deputy SG, since he was the political deputy, which means he can’t escape that burden entirely as the political deputy helps shape the ideology being argued in his assignments. It’s why Reagan created the post.
Kimmitt
But it doesn’t constitute any sort of endorsement of Bush’s nomination.
Heeuw. I mean, to some degree, yes. But on the other hand, the Republican victories in the House and Senate do begin to constitute endorsement of the President’s nominees — or at least a supermajority of them.
John S.
Yes, John, the Democrats certainly did lose the election. And the people who supported Bush are definitely looking for some sort of political payoff for the choice they made.
I almost hope that Bush’s new Supreme Court does overturn Roe v. Wade so I can watch the fallout from abortion being made illegal in the United States. The Phillippines certainly seems to be struggling mightily with that weighty precedent, but farbeit from Americans to ever consider how things go down in other countries when considering the choices we make here.
Yes, let them reap what they have sown.
KC
John, I want to underscore the fact that the entire “left” is not NARAL or dkos. I’m a conservative Dem, NARAL does not represent my opinions on matters. As I said last night, I think this guy should get a fair hearing and an opportunity to answer questions before anyone gets on his case. From what I’ve read, he’s a straightup guy, someone people like, and if nothing comes out during the hearings indicating he has done something illegal or grossly stupid, then he deserves a vote. There are a lot of people on the left that are taking a wait and see attitude towards him, as they should. They are also telling the dkos people to settle down, as in the posts I linked to last night at TPMCafe and Talkleft (which you quoted). Yes, there are some rabid reactionaries out there, but lets be honest, a lot of people on the left, perhaps a majority, acknowledge that this guy is a solid pick.
Bernard Yomtov
What rilkefan said.
I think Roberts ought to be grilled thoroughly, but at this point see no justification for a filibuster.
Naral obviously isn’t going to get a nominee they like from Bush. Still, they are entitled to criticize Roberts, and highlight things they don’t like. Give them credit for actually saying something specific, as opposed to Coulter.
Don’t make the mistake, though, of assuming that Naral speaks for the Democratic Party.
And spare us quotes from Tony Perkins.
Rick
I almost hope that Bush’s new Supreme Court does overturn Roe v. Wade so I can watch the fallout from abortion being made illegal in the United States.
Roe v. Wade might be overturned because it’s poor, activist legislation-from-the-bench, but its expunging wouldn’t result in abortion being outlawed. At the time of that decision, I believe 27 states had already legalized the procedure.
It’d be a tough sell to get legislature’s to ban it. Aside from “partial birth” experimentation.
Cordially…
John S.
At the time of that decision, I believe 27 states had already legalized the procedure.
I think the behavior of the Bush administration clearly shows that this wouldn’t amount to much. Thus far, the Bush DoJ has launched attacks on the ability of states to make such laws for themselves. They have already successfully attacked California’s medical marijuana laws, are presently trying to fight Oregon’s euthanasia laws and I have no doubt will be going after any states that pass laws that allow gay marriage.
The current flavor of conservatism no longer favors the previously held view that state sovereignty takes precedence over a consolidation of federal power. Once (and if) the obstacle that is Roe v. Wade gets knocked down, it will only be a matter of time before the White House goes after the 27 states that may currently have laws that allow early-term abortion.
shark
It’s all good, because this is the “nice” nomination. You can be sure that when Bush gets his 2nd nomination (chances are he will) it will be to someone like Brown or Owen.
Rick
Once (and if) the obstacle that is Roe v. Wade gets knocked down, it will only be a matter of time before the White House goes after the 27 states that may currently have laws that allow early-term abortion.
Just how much time do you think the Talibanic Bush administration has left to push this coup? At best, all they could do would be to limit Medicaid funding for abortion.
Cordially…
Hokie
Roe v. Wade might be overturned because it’s poor, activist legislation-from-the-bench, but its expunging wouldn’t result in abortion being outlawed. At the time of that decision, I believe 27 states had already legalized the procedure.
I actually agree with Rick here, to a degree; I agree with the conclusion of Roe, but not the reasoning Blackmun gave. It’s a reasonably poor piece of jurisprudence, especially from someone like Blackmun. The revisions made in Casey I think are appropriate.
To a degree, I sympathize; sometimes I think it’d be nice to make the pro-lifers actually accountable for their policy choices, because I don’t think banning abortion, even in several states (and I can see many which would ban crossing state lines to get one as well) is something which would be tolerated in many places for a long time.
But then I think of what it would mean for actual, real people for that time.
John S.
Just how much time do you think the Talibanic Bush administration has left to push this coup?
An excellent question. I suppose we will have our first taste of an answer in the 2006 elections. That should provide a glimpse as to whether or not the public’s love affair with religiously infused conservatism is over.
I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
John S.
sometimes I think it’d be nice to make the pro-lifers actually accountable for their policy choices
This is the reality on the ground in the Philippines right now. Abortion has been illegal there since 1987, but as a result, the policy has created a health crisis. It is estimated that 400,000 illegal abortions are performed each year (the WHO estimates 800,000), and 100,000 from the estimated 400,000 abortion cases end up in complications or death.
Here is an interesting article on the subject if you are interested in seeing what a pro-life policy can produce.
ET
I am one of those Dems that is taking a wait and see. At this point nothing leaps of the page as being totally unpalatible. No obvious Constution in Exile tendancies, no Roy Moore histrionics, etc. I never expected a nominee that I was thrilled over – but I sure expected worse.
I definitely think that there should be tough questioning but this is the SCOTUS and a lifetime appointment I would want that no matter the candidate, no matter the nominating president.
Two points on the WH strategy…While I think that this nomination is a bit of a signal as to the weakenss (or full plate) of the president, I also think that it was a defensive pick with regards to the hard core anti-abortionists because there isn’t much of a paper trail on most topics, most especially abortion. I can’t help but wonder if Bush & Co want Dems to get defensive and reactionary and hold up the nomination so the can trot out the “up or down vote” meme and point to how the president has put forth a solid nomination and those Dems are just be obstructionist, etc, etc. I say why give him that ammunition. Grill him hard, ask the question that need to be asked. Don’t nitpick and obssess or otherwise look petty. Take the high ground and don’t give it to the administration. Be professional and adult. If this nomination goes hard let it be because some conservative consituency obssesses and makes trouble – that is so much better.
Sojourner
And you’re reliably ocnsistent in contributing nothing of substance to the dialogue. It is your hobgoblin and also makes you rather tedious.
Sojourner
I was so bored I couldn’t even type.
So make that “consistent” not ocnsistent.