Souter in Roberts Clothing - Ann Coulter

[-Cp]

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

 

[Annie]

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.

 

[Gabriella84]

It was nice of Coulter to take time away from pleasing her liberal cowboy boyfriend to favor us with her opinion. :rotflmao:

 

[ScreamingEagle]

It was nice of Coulter to take time away from pleasing her liberal cowboy boyfriend to favor us with her opinion. :rotflmao:

Typical imbecilic smarmy liberal inane guttertalk.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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

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.

 

[Annie]

I think it helps for perspective.

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

Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Why I'm not worried that Judge John G. Roberts will become "another Souter"

Conventional wisdom is that all other things being equal, the single best predictor for how a SCOTUS nominee will behave as a Justice is that nominee's written opinions as an appellate judge on a lower court. Even then, because those lower courts lack the full range of powers that SCOTUS has, there are limits to how confidently such predictions can be made. But many conservatives had hoped that Dubya would pick a nominee (e.g., the Fifth Circuit's Edith Jones) with a long, deep record of writing on controversial issues from, for example, a seat on one of the federal courts of appeals.

John G. Roberts doesn't have that kind of long, deep written record as a judge on the DC Circuit — and that may leave some conservatives uncomfortable about the possibility that he'll become "another Souter." But for reasons that, oddly enough, are closely related to the attacks that Judge Roberts' opponents are certain to make, I think that conservatives ought not be concerned about this.

*******

The flip side of Judge Roberts having a thin public record as a judge, of course, is that there's less of a paper trail for Judge Roberts' opponents to pick through and distort; indeed, this was the "stealth candidate" rationale advanced by the Bush-41 Administration for the Souter nomination that, in hindsight, backfired so badly. Lacking a long paper trail of prior judicial opinions, Judge Roberts' opponents will instantly flip to alternative strategies.

First, they may decry the nominee's "lack of judicial experience." This is singularly unpersuasive with Judge Roberts, though, because his two years on the DC Circuit are nontrivial, he'd have been there since 1993 had not Bush-41 lost, and his other academic and career credentials are so varied in type but extraordinary in quality. Indeed, if his only credential were the extraordinary number of cases he's personally argued and won in the Supreme Court as an advocate, that alone would probably be enough to qualify him for a seat on that bench! So this strategy is unlikely to be very appealing or effective.

A second alternative strategy is available to the Dems precisely because Judge Roberts has spent much of his career as a public servant — first, as a lawyer whose clients have most frequently been the President and the United States, and more recently as a judge. Using this fact, I guarantee you that opponents of this nomination will (as they did with Miguel Estrada) manufacture a bogus dispute by demanding executive-privileged documents that Dubya won't and can't turn over, and nor could any President without forever damaging our federal separation of powers system. Senators are no more entitled to seize, publish, and dissect John Roberts' privileged advice to the Executive Branch than they are entitled to seize, publish, and dissect his correspondence with other judges on the DC Circuit; but that won't stop them from trying. And — again as with Estrada — no matter what he says during his confirmation hearings, they'll contend that Judge Roberts has been "insufficiently candid" based on his refusal to let them put words into his mouth, or to answer "stopped beating your wife?" questions, or to pre-commit on or address the merits of "pending or impending" cases that a judge may not ethically discuss.

Third, Judge Roberts' opponents will try to tag him with public positions he's taken on behalf of clients, either governmental or private-party, before he became a judge. As a high-profile and active appellate advocate, John Roberts has, of course, advanced many arguments and taken many positions on behalf of the Reagan and Bush-41 Administrations and on behalf of Hogan & Hartson's private clients in what have been, by definition, high-stakes and hugely controversial cases. His name is on, and he's been personally involved in writing, a great many briefs, and he's also orally argued many of those cases. Opponents of his nomination will therefore impute arguments and positions to him, personally and in full, whenever it fits their goal of portraying him as "extremist." (Indeed, they've already started). This may be a somewhat effective strategy, but it's extremely cynical and unfair, and it will ultimately fail because it ignores what even the general public understands to be the most basic truth of lawyering: Whenever John Roberts has appeared in courts as an advocate, he's been expressing views as an agent on behalf of his principals, not on his own behalf. That is his and every advocate's fundamental duty — both when the advocate personally agrees with his principal and when the advocate personally disagrees (and has privately argued against that argument or position). The fact of the matter is that you can tell something about how clever and competent a lawyer is by observing his oral and written advocacy, but you can't really tell what's behind the mask, what's inside the advocate's heart. This might actually end up briefly troubling conservatives: Just as liberals can't conclusively assert that everything Principal Deputy Solicitor General Roberts wrote and argued as a public advocate for the Bush-41 Administration reflects his personal beliefs, neither can conservatives necessarily rely upon that either!

*******

But worry not, my conservative friends, because this actually gets me back around to why I'm not terribly worried that Judge Roberts will turn out to be "another Souter."

Through documents and through first-hand opinions of solid and reliable conservatives who've worked closely with John G. Roberts — in his capacity as a private counselor, and not just a public advocate — Dubya does have full access to what Judge Roberts has thought and said when he's been at his most candid, under pressure and entirely outside the public spotlight.

Hugh Hewitt pointed out on his radio show tonight, entirely correctly, that when John Roberts was a lawyer for the Reagan Administration, that Administration was under legal siege: times were tough, stakes were high, and wise, private legal judgments were desperately needed. Seeing from a client's viewpoint how a lawyer functions as a counselor — how he privately answers key questions like "Is this wise? Is this principled? What are the downsides? What do we really think, public façade aside?" — is extremely revealing. Quite arguably, this sort of information can tell one even more about how a nominee will perform in the future than what he's written — always for publication and usually after compromise with others on the bench — as a judge on a lower appellate court.

Thus, through people like former Solicitor General Ken Starr (and, perhaps, Chief Justice Rehnquist?) with whom John Roberts has worked very closely, and through privileged documents that Judge Roberts must have written himself while a government lawyer, Dubya and his staff certainly know vastly more about Judge Roberts' character and core beliefs than, for example, Poppy Bush ever could have known about David Souter or than the Gipper ever could have known about Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy. Instead, Dubya and his staff have the same kind of first-hand, pertinent, and highly reliable knowledge about John Roberts that Richard Nixon and his staff had about William Rehnquist. And that worked out pretty well over time, didn't it?

Again, for reasons of precedent and preservation of executive privilege, Dubya won't and can't share those private, confidential documents, nor those private, confidential personal assessments, with you, me, or the Senate. But he has them; they're incredibly meaningful; and we have every reason to believe that Dubya has made very, very good use of them. Don't misunderestimate your president, my conservative friends. Rejoice and have faith!

-------------------

[This post has been substantially edited for clarity after a decent night's sleep. — Beldar.]

We all know Ann Coulter, so Who is Beldar?

Biography

Winston S. ChurchillI, WILLIAM J. DYER, was born on November 26, 1957, in Lamesa, Texas. There's some dispute over whether Winston Churchill did or did not actually say this, but regardless of its source, I agree with the famous quote that "[a]ny man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains." (Well, maybe 35; certainly 40.) So do the math and you'll intuit my politics.

The State Bar of Texas granted me Bar Card No. 06321100 and an accompanying license to practice law on November 24, 1980. I continue to "practice" despite having gotten it right from time to time. If you're curious about the details, you can read my résumé that I use at work. However:
I'm a lawyer. But not YOUR lawyer!

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER! — a/k/a — "Laying a bulletproof basis for my prospective 'Me no Alamo!' defense if anyone ever sues me about anything having to do with this website!"

In contrast to the résumé linked above or the website of the law firm where I practice, this weblog is not intended to solicit or advise clients, nor for any other commercial purpose. Nor is this weblog in any way connected with my ongoing practice of law.

Any legal opinions or information that I may publish on the BeldarBlog weblog should be considered to be exclusively for purposes of entertainment. No reader of this website should ever rely upon any legal opinions or other information published here — not even just a little bit! If you need legal advice or information that you can rely upon, I strongly recommend that you consult directly — in person preferably, or at a minimum by telephone, and not over the Internet — with a lawyer duly licensed to practice law in the state (or territory or country) where you live.

I'm a lawyer, but I am not your lawyer, okay? I don't even pretend to be as careful in what I may spout off with here as any lawyer must be in advising and representing real clients. I obviously think I'm pretty smart, and I'll do my best to be right and not to mislead or lie; but nothing here should ever be assumed to represent the position of any of my clients, or my firm's clients, or of any other lawyers with whom I may practice.

And please don't send me any confidential information — there's no attorney-client relationship between us and it will not be protected by attorney-client privilege!

Besides: What's any jury going to do as soon as they're told you relied on a weblog from a lawyer who called himself "Beldar"?

Miscellaneous other stuff

Stuff I've written here is © 2003-2005 by William J. Dyer. However, visitors are welcome to quote, especially with links, or make other "fair use" of anything here to which I have rights. My hope and belief is that anything from another source which I have quoted, displayed, or used here is public-domain, but I encourage anyone who thinks otherwise to contact me with any claim of infringement, invasion of privacy, or so forth. Unless otherwise advised, I'll assume that anyone who emails me is speaking "on the record" and doesn't mind my posting here what they've emailed.

The name "Beldar" probably belongs to General Electric, NBC, "Saturday Night Live," or someone connected to them; I make no claim to it myself, and I have no intent to harm them nor to profit personally from its joking and satirical use on this blog.

Whence "Beldar"?

"Beldar" is a nickname that goes back to my college days when, during the Fall 1978, I was part of the "Fingquo" pledge class of the Alpha Tau chapter of the Kappa Kappa Psi service fraternity of the Longhorn Band at the University of Texas at Austin.

'The Coneheads' movie posterBeginning in January of 1978, the then-new network TV comedy show "Saturday Night Live" had started running a series of skits, inspired by Dan Ackroyd, about "the Coneheads" — a family of aliens from the distant planet Remulak who had badly muffed their pre-invasion mission by crashing into Lake Michigan. Ackroyd's character, the father in the Conehead family, was named "Beldar." The skits were quite popular (and eventually, perhaps inevitably, spun off "The Coneheads" movie in 1993).

Anyway, one night after band practice, my pledge brothers and I were brainstorming ideas for a series of comedy skits — all of which were knock-offs from current SNL skit themes — in order to entertain our brethren at the next chapter meeting. Having been pre-lubricated with our own "mass quantities of beer," we quickly decided that we needed our own "Coneheads" skit. While we figured out which of us would play each of the Conehead characters from SNL, one of my pledge brothers, struck with a fit of inspiration, suddenly pointed at me, shouted my name, and then morphed and slurred and mangled it to fit our skit needs: "Hey — Bill Dyer, Bill-Dyer, Bell-Duhr ... BELDAR!" The resulting skit was far too sexually graphic and profane to ever appear on network TV or even to be repeated here! But it was considered a big hit, and my new nickname instantly spread and, indeed, stayed with me throughout the rest of my Longhorn Band days at UT.

More anecdotal and biographical details — appropriately massaged, spun, and sanitized — are (perhaps) scattered throughout the blog.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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?

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.

 

[Annie]

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!

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

While 'no guarantees' I think as he, the odds are good.

 

[Annie]

Satire Alert!

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

He or She Is The Wrong Man or Woman For The Court

Critical Urgent Community Action Bulletin
from the Progressive Action Network For American Progress
For Immediate Release

The Progressive Action Network For American Progress is extremely concerned by today's news that President Bush has selected ___JOHN ROBERTS___ as his nominee for the vacancy on the United States Supreme Court. Unlike outgoing Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the widely respected and admired moderate consensus-building sensible mainstream compromisist, ___JOHN ROBERTS___ has a shocking record of extremely extreme fringe legal positions that fill us with grave concerns about ___HIS___ fitness for this critically crucial office.

Make no mistake: no one should be fooled by the administration's public relations efforts or ___JOHN ROBERTS___ 's seemingly "moderate" appearance. ___JOHN ROBERTS___ has a record that suggests that ___HE___ would deny women the right to reproductive choice, stop important life-saving medical stem cell research by extending the Patriot Act to draft their unwanted fetuses, and turn these conscripted fetuses over to dangerous tax-supported 'Creationist' religious indoctrination laboratories. The Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment, and America needs to know whether ___JOHN ROBERTS___ supports the GOP's secret plan of a Rush Limbaugh Jesus army of unwanted, unquestioning fetus zombies programmed to urinate on the Korans of Guantanamo detainees.

We should also point out that our opposition to ___JOHN ROBERTS___ has nothing to do with the nominee's race and/or gender. We at the Progressive Action Network For American Progress have long been on record of standing up for the civil rights of ___WHITE MEN___ , rights from which ___JOHN ROBERTS___ ironically, has benefitted. Sadly, rather than create programs and begin to work on the real problems that concern ___WHITE MEN___ , the Bush administration has cynically forwarded an unqualified, token candidate like ___JOHN ROBERTS___ to mask its callous indifference to the plight of the ___WHITE MAN___ community.

WHAT YOU CAN DO

In response to this shocking nomination, we here at the Progressive Action Network For American Progress are joining forces with other mainstream grassroots progressive activist organizations -- organizations like Peace Power Community Now Network, Grant Proposers for Justice, NairBusters, Out of Our Wombs!, UpChuck.org, ToothACHE, and Sitcom Producers for the American Way. Over the next few weeks we will be encouraging the Senate Judiciary Committee to take a close look at ___JOHN ROBERTS___ and ___HIS___ extremist views on the critical legal issues that face all of us. While we will be working hard to get out the word in Washington, ordinary progressive citizens like you can do your part as well. First, write your newspaper and/or Senator and let them know that you will not stand by idly while Bush and Company install a pseudo-" ___WHITE MAN___" like ___JOHN ROBERTS___ on the nation's highest court. Here's a letter to get you started!

Dear Senator __________

As a constituent and a voter in our great state of ___________, home of the famous ___________, I am proud that our state enjoys the the nickname of "Cradle of ____________s." This is why I must strongly urge you to oppose the nomination of ___JOHN ROBERTS___, a dangerous extremist whose legal rulings threaten to endanger our state's beloved ___________, making us no better than Mississippi.

Sincerely,

Your Name Here

Be polite and remember to fill in your Senator's name and pertinent facts about your state. If you are from Mississippi, replace "Mississippi" with "California". Also, replace "Your Name Here" with your name, unless your name is actually "Your Name Here."

Another thing you can do to help is to find more information about ___JOHN ROBERTS___ . The people who know ___HIM___, what do they say about ___HIM___ ? Was ___HE___ ever in trouble with the law? Frequently, ___WHITE MEN___ like ___JOHN ROBERTS___ have arrest records in their youth. If you are near ___JOHN ROBERTS___ 's hometown of ___UNKNOWN___, try searching in the local police archives for the ___JOHN ROBERTS___ name or possible aliases. Also, think hard -- are you certain that you have not been personally victimized, or assaulted by ___JOHN ROBERTS___? Search your recollections carefully. Scientists tell us that millions of us suffer from Repressed Memory Syndrome -- a debilitating psychological problem where victims are unable to recall a painful physical or emotional trauma, such as being physically violated by ___JOHN ROBERTS___. If you do not remember this happening to you, please call us and we will get you the help you need to recover your mind and start the road to healing.

Consider the consequences of inaction: with ___JOHN ROBERTS___ on the bench, millions of Americans may lose their cherished constitutional rights, Air America, perhaps even their grant money from George Soros. We here at the Progressive Action Network For American Progress ask you to please do your part. Our very democracy depends on the grassroots action of committed progressives like ___YOUR_NAME_HERE___ .

 

[Gabriella84]

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!

 

[Avatar4321]

She is honest, which is what liberals hate about her.

Ann has some valid concerns. But I think Roberts appears to be a good candidate. He was a clerk for our Chief Justice so I am sure there were some positive influences there. The liberals are already opposing him strongly which means he threatens them. So it seems to be a pretty good choice so far.

The question is will there be a fillibuster involved. Likely there will be. but we will have to wait and see.