Souter in Roberts Clothing - Ann Coulter

Discussion in 'Politics' started by -Cp, Jul 20, 2005.

  1. -Cp
    Offline

    -Cp Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,911
    Thanks Received:
    360
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Earth
    Ratings:
    +363
    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 fFynt'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.

    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 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, lets 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, they'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 ten!

    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 Ginsberg to lifetime sinecures 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.

    During the “filibuster” fracas, one lonely voice in the woods
    admonished Republicans: “Of your six minutes on TV, use 30 seconds to point out the Democrats are abusing the filibuster and the other 5 1/2 minutes to ask liberals to explain why they think Bush's judicial nominees are ‘extreme.’" Republicans ignored this advice, spent the next several weeks arguing about the history of the filibuster, and lost the fight.

    Now we come to find out from last Sunday’s New York Times — the enemy’s own playbook! — that the Democrats actually took polls and determined that they could not defeat Bush’s conservative judicial nominees on ideological grounds. They could win majority support only if they argued turgid procedural points.

    That’s why the entire nation had to be bored to death with arguments about the filibuster earlier this year.

    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 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.

    http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi
     
  2. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Time will tell and there is probably one or two more appointments for Bush to make. Coulter and Barnes are the only ones concerned about the guy. They might be right, I'm sure they will tell us so.
     
  3. Gabriella84
    Offline

    Gabriella84 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    It was nice of Coulter to take time away from pleasing her liberal cowboy boyfriend to favor us with her opinion. :rotflmao:
     
  4. ScreamingEagle
    Offline

    ScreamingEagle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    12,887
    Thanks Received:
    1,610
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,159
    Typical imbecilic smarmy liberal inane guttertalk. :boobies:
     
  5. ScreamingEagle
    Offline

    ScreamingEagle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    12,887
    Thanks Received:
    1,610
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,159
    Coulter makes some very good points. There is not much of a trail to tell what Roberts will actually do when in Court. Except that he is against Roe v Wade. He is not exactly a Scalia or a Thomas. Maybe this is why Bush chose him, but I have to agree with her when she says substance is their weakest ground. Bush always seems to tread the middle ground which is very frustrating.
     
  6. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I think it helps for perspective.

    http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2005/07/why_im_not_worr.html

    We all know Ann Coulter, so Who is Beldar?
     
  7. ScreamingEagle
    Offline

    ScreamingEagle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    12,887
    Thanks Received:
    1,610
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,159
    So Beldar thinks the left can attack Roberts
    1) for a lack of judicial experience
    2) by demanding executive-priviliged documents
    3) by tagging him with the positions he's taken on behalf of clients

    None of the above seem to be very effective arguments - that's good!
    The lack of a judicial trail is a two-edged sword. Less for the libs to attack but less for the cons to know what to expect (as Coulter points out).

    Let's just hope that Bush knows Roberts as well as Nixon knew Rhenquist.
     
  8. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    While 'no guarantees' I think as he, the odds are good. :beer:
     
  9. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Satire Alert!

    http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/

     
  10. Gabriella84
    Offline

    Gabriella84 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    In all seriousness, I happen to LIKE Ann Coulter! As a person.
    Her political views and statements are too inane to be taken seriously. But she lives her life the way I live mine, without caring what someone else thinks.
    I believe it was Salon.com that revealed that Coulter has a voracious sexual appetite. Which she does not deny. When confronted with pictures of Coulter snogging an aspiring country singer with known Liberal credentials, a spokesperson stated "Miss Coulter leaves her political views outside the bedroom."
    Coulter has been linked to many men, including Sean Hannity.

    At least she is honest. More power to her! :banana2:
     

Share This Page