Ann Coulter article about Roberts

[ylexot]

SOUTER IN ROBERTS CLOTHING

She thinks that Roberts is going to be anothe Souter, but it looks to me like she doesn't really know either way...and that scares her.

I did find this quote particularly funny:

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.

 

[Bruzilla]

She makes some good points... chief amongst them is the fact that you can't base an opinion on how he feels about issues based on arguments he pushed in the courts on behalf of clients. Those were the view of the people who hired him, and not his own.

I also agree that we've been sold a pig in a poke too many times, and we need to do a much better job of making sure we've got another Scalia and nor another Souter.

 

[FromTexas]

You also have to remember that Coulter would prefer as hard right as you could get. Anything even halfway to moderate Republican is pretty much just a liberal in disguise to her. However, it could go the right way for us. He could be very conservative and well be passed through because they have nothing to hang on him.

 

[Bustem' Down]

I just wish he was more moderate. I don't like left or right.

 

[FromTexas]

I just wish he was more moderate. I don't like left or right.

More moderate how? When it comes to judiciary, it shouldn't be politics but Constitutional guidance. The conservative judges tend to look at the Constitution for what it is and the liberal judges tend to look at the Constitution for what they can try to skew it to say (activism).

 

[rraley]

More moderate how? When it comes to judiciary, it shouldn't be politics but Constitutional guidance. The conservative judges tend to look at the Constitution for what it is and the liberal judges tend to look at the Constitution for what they can try to skew it to say (activism).

Bullshit, FT. "Activists" hail from all stripes. What differs is that the two sides use constitutional activism to meet different ends.

Stop throwing this activist bs label thing, because it is highly misguided and is just a regurgitation of GOP talking points.

On another note, I wouldn't worry about Roberts being a stealth moderate or liberal, as Souter was. First of all, he was clerk for William Rehnquist, a solid conservative on the Court. Plus, when he was in the Solicitor General's office he was a the "political deputy." This title differs from others within the office and means that Roberts was employed to represent his ideas, just as much as his client, the federal government. Furthermore, he was a White House counsel to President Reagan. This guy's conservative credentials are clear, and any stealth allegation seems hollow to me in light of these points.

 

[Larry Gude]

Define please...

I just wish he was more moderate. I don't like left or right.

...what would 'more moderate' be?

 

[Larry Gude]

Yes Texas...

Stop throwing this activist bs label thing, because it is highly misguided and is just a regurgitation of GOP talking points.

...stop it at once. You'll hurt your arm. Where are the Democratic talking points? Regurgitate them for a change why don't you? Quit being so misguided. You know damn well what 'advise and consent' means:

"Teddy, is this guy OK with you?..."

 

[FromTexas]

Bullshit, FT. "Activists" hail from all stripes. What differs is that the two sides use constitutional activism to meet different ends.

Would you like to point to how affirmative action is not an activist judge issue? How the Constitution spells out preferential treatment for one group over the other? Would you like to point out where the Constitution points to the right to take away property for private ventures because the government knows whats better for your community? Would you like to point out where the Constitution states that church and state shall be so seperate that the ten commandments can not even be displayed and kids can't ask for a prayer before a football game? Would you like to point out where the federal government gets the right to dictate the prosecution of people for medical marijuana when the state has made regulation for its people otherwise (yes, O'Connor, Rhenquist, and Thomas dissented on that opinion)?

 

[rraley]

FT, the definition of judicial activism is a propensity to overturn congressional laws/statutes, which is essentially "legistlating from the bench." This means thumbing your nose at precedent in many cases, using the Constitution inconsistently to meet your ideology, etc. This is the test, not whether you are liberal or conservative. If you look at the current Court makeup...you will notice that Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist have the greatest propensity to overturn congressional statute over the rest.

Take a look at the decision of the Texas Supreme Court (written by Alberto Gonzales) that calls the decision of Priscilla Owen to bar a teenager from receiving an abortion a "gross example of activism." Or perhaps Judge Roy Moore in Alabama refusing to obey the decisions of higher courts regarding the Ten Commandments?

Furthermore, FT, tell me where in the Constitution does it explicitly say that the laundry list you provided are incorrect?

Larry...since when have I had a reputation for simply using Democratic talking points?

 

[rraley]

...what would 'more moderate' be?

Sandra Day O'Connor...a real justice who weighs all sides/logic before deciding a case.

 

[SmallTown]

I know, stupid example, but the only one being played in the local media... The little girl and the french fry on the metro. He was a part of that trial. The verdict was yes, she was guilty by the law and was found as such. But he also went out and chastised the police for arresting her in the first place. Once it got to him, he went by the law. Had he been there when it happened, he may have even asked the cop to lighten up. So if he can always put the law in front of personal feelings, he should be ok. Though we know as humans, this is impossible. I see this being a pretty quick confirmation.

 

[FromTexas]

FT, the definition of judicial activism is a propensity to overturn congressional laws/statutes, which is essentially "legistlating from the bench." This means thumbing your nose at precedent in many cases, using the Constitution inconsistently to meet your ideology, etc.

Judge Roy didn't change the law. He tried not to listen to it. That is not judicial activism. That is civil disobedience.

Judicial Activism "is the practice in the judiciary of protecting or expanding individual rights through decisions that depart from established precedent or are independent of or in opposition to supposed constitutional or legislative intent."

 

[ylexot]

Furthermore, FT, tell me where in the Constitution does it explicitly say that the laundry list you provided are incorrect?

Amendment X:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In other words, if the Constitution (or an amendment) doesn't explicitly give the fed. government the power, they don't have it. We might as well just remove that one though since everyone ignores it anyway.