No Need For Stealth Nominee
By Scott Editor | Scott's Archive
July 27, 2005

For the second straight week conservative columnist Ann Coulter dedicated her space to fiercely opposing John Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court, despite widespread praise coming from the conservative community.

As she did last week, Coulter reminds us that conservatives are in charge with a majority in the Senate and they would confirm even the most conservative nominee President Bush put before them. Nowhere in this week's column does she bring up the prospect of a filibuster, which Coulter is confident can be defeated with the enactment of the Nuclear Option the Senate isn't as eager for.

"At least when Souter was nominated, we needed a stealth nominee. The Senate was majority Democrat back then. The Judiciary Committee consisted of eight Democrats and six Republicans two of whom were aggressively pro-abortion. A year later, faced with the same Democratic Senate, the current president's father nominated Clarence Thomas. Who would have thought the current Bush would be less macho than his father?"

Another Souter would be devastating to the conservative movement as they need a more right-leaning justice to be on the way to overturning Roe v. Wade - which currently stands as "settled law" because of O'Connor's and Kennedy's upholding votes.

Even though Kennedy, one of the youngest justices on the Court, may not be retiring for awhile, liberal justice John Paul Stevens is 85 years old. Unlike his colleagues he may not have a choice when his time is up.

"Roberts would have been a fine candidate for a Senate in Democratic hands. But now we have 55 Republican seats in the Senate and the vice president to cast a deciding vote and Son of Read-My-Lips gives us another ideological blind date."

Coulter obviously wants a proven constructionist to replace O'Connor, such as Samuel Alito, and frankly so do I, but I have faith in Roberts more so than ever now that newly released documents suggesting he's a true Constitutionalist have been released by the National Archives. The one issue still in the dark is his position on abortion, and that uncertainly is what has Coulter scratching her head. When Sean Hannity asked on his radio program what she thought about Hillary Clinton giving Roberts a thumbs up, Coulter responded, "I was thrown into a fit of depression."

"He is David Hackett Souter, only the most recent reason Republican presidents -- especially Republican presidents named "Bush" -- have lost the right to say 'Trust me' when it comes to Supreme Court nominations.

"The other reasons are: Earl Warren, William Brennan, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy.

Ouch. When Coulter starts writing that President Bush "can't be trusted" you know she believes he made a mistake. After all, he did once say he preferred justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas to be on the High Court, and now one must wonder why he didn't follow up on his word by nominating one to replace the moderate O'Connor.

If Coulter is right, and I hope to God she isn't, Bush will need to nominate three proven anti-Roe justices - to replace Rehnquist, Stevens and one more who is unlikely to step down anytime soon - to have a 5-4 majority in favor of overturning a ruling that spawned from a non-existent right in the Constitution.

But maybe President Bush knows something about John Roberts the rest of us -- including Coulter -- don't, and perhaps in one of his conversations with the judge he was promised that Roberts would please the conservative base. Of course, that conversation may have never taken place and even if it did it doesn't mean Roberts will stay true to his word. Who knows what O'Connor told Reagan during their pre-nomination chat. Same goes for Souter and Kennedy with the first President Bush.

Only time will tell what Roberts will do when he's finally confirmed to the Court later this year, and we can only hope Coulter's incorrect prediction will make her happy to be exposed in another hack book by Al Franken.

Want to debate this issue and make your own aggressive voice heard? Head over to my blog, Aggressive-Voice Daily, and join in on the discussion.

[  Home  |   Book Reviews  |   Movie Reviews  |   Scott's Archive  |   Blog  ]
Copyright 2005 All rights reserved. Contact Editor: Scott