The Roberts appointment
Several people have asked me since last night what I think of the President’s choice for the Supreme Court, Judge John Roberts of the D.C. Court of Appeals. One of my closest friends and confidantes, R. Jason Howard, Esq., openly speculated as to whether conservatives have been sold out by Roberts’ appointment. Another friend wanted to know if I believed Roberts was “the genuine article.” Many people are concerned that Roberts is a “stealth candidate,” and we don’t know much about his prior record.We do know some things about Roberts’ legal record, however. He has argued 39 cases before the United States Supreme Court. Among his achievements as a counsel in the Reagan Administration was to write a brief declaring that Roe v. Wade was bad law, and was a poorly written and argued legal decision. He wrote a similar brief for the previous President Bush. Not only do NARAL, the National Organization for Women, People for the (un)American Way, and the ACLU all oppose Roberts’ nomination, but Ted Kennedy, Patrick Leahy, and the Senate Democratic Caucus are already beginning to whine, with Teddy-boy threatening a filibuster. Judging by the Democrat reaction, John Roberts must be a solid choice or the liberals would not be throwing a royal conniption.
Conservatives need to simmer down in this case. In no way do I believe the President intended to sell us out here. Had he wanted to do that, he would have appointed Alberto Gonzales. President Bush is not a mind reader, he can’t tell us, nor can we know, how John Roberts will perform on the Supreme Court. Ronald Reagan could not have known how Sandra Day O’Connor would perform (her record was quite mixed as we know), but her past record at the time of her nomination showed she was a stellar candidate. There is the chance that John Roberts won’t live up to his promise, just as his predecessor didn’t, but Roberts has a record that would indicate that he’d be a fine conservative candidate for the Court. He has been the strict constructionist we have waited for all these many years. It would be wrong of the President not to have considered Roberts, and if he turns out to be the good Justice the President expects him to be, we will all cheer this appointment as President Bush’s greatest legacy.
posted by Deacon David Oatney @ 7:31 PM
3 Comments:
David,
While I believe that we should trust our President to make the correct nomination to the Supreme Court, there are still a lot of questions to be asked about the nominee, Judge Roberts. While it is possible that Roberts' actions while counsel under previous administrations COULD point to his views on certain key issues (primarily abortion), they should not be used as definitive proof. We must remember that, as legal counsel to previous administrations, it was Roberts' job to aggressively back the stance and beliefs of his client(s). Had he not done so, he would be nothing more than a bad lawyer. His words, under those circumstances, can only be definitively seen as his CLIENT(S) views, not his own. While he may personally share those views, there is simply not enough evidence (yet) to show that, one way or the other.
Matt
Mat is off the mark here. I say give Roberts half a chance here. He may turn out to be just the one for us; and then again, maybe not. I maintain he is a good choice. Let us not forget. President Bush may have yet another chance or two at the so-called Supreme court. IF the Democrats try to stall Roberts, or any other of President Bushes Supreme court nominees, I can promise you this. the American people will see the leftist god hating servants of Satan who run the once great Democrat party for what they truly are and, at long last, turn them out on their ears. We MUST reclaim that which is rightfully ours.
First, I never said that I wasn't willing to give Roberts a chance. I was merely pointing out that we know very little of Judge Roberts' views on many important issues. Using statements he made while acting as legal counsel for someone is not valid, because he is not representing his own views in that position -- he is representing the views of his clients.
There's no evidence to say that he'll be a bad appointment, and I'm certainly willing to give him a chance. However, before he is officially confirmed, it would be helpful if he would allow us some insight into his views.
Post a Comment
<< Home