07-20-2005, 12:55 PM
If you're like me, and you know absolutely nothing about President Bush's choice for the the Supreme Court, then perhaps you'd like to know what all the opinon makers think. I find it interesting that nobody seems to have the slightest idea - not even other judges/law professors! And how utterly boring!
DEMOCRATS
Roger Simon - 'OK, He'll Do. Now Back to Plame!....The last thing a wartime president needs at a moment like this is a divisive Supreme Court fight."
Mickey Kaus from Slate - If the alternative to a divisive Supreme Court fight is returning the public's attention to a) the ongoing casualties in Iraq; b) a scandal involving the president's top aide and c) a highly unpopular Social Security plan, I'd say Bush's biggest fear is that Roberts isn't controversial or divisive enough. He might just sail through!
Chris Bewers - One partisan hack is deflecting attention from another....John Roberts has been filing briefs and providing legal support for recounts (Roberts worked for Bush-Cheney 2000 in Florida, and he also worked with Ken Star) on behalf of Republicans for two decades. John Roberts is a partisan hack taking the heat for another partisan hack. He has only been a judge for two years. He has been a partisan Republican hack for twenty years.
Jacob Weisburg from Slate - ...an opinion that the 50-year-old judge joined just last week in the case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld should be seriously troubling to anyone who values civil liberties....Roberts signed on to a blank-check grant of power to the Bush administration to try suspected terrorists without basic due-process protections....So, what does that say about John Roberts? Did he decide that Judge Randolph had it right down the line in Hamdan, or did he sign on to a flawed and sweeping opinion because he was auditioning for the job Bush has now picked him for? Neither prospect is reassuring.
Robert W Gordon of TPM CAfe - With Roberts Bush is obviously playing it safe...Roberts is the least likely of the rumored short listed candidates to provoke outrage.
Howard Kurtz - "The morning analyses, if you read between the lines, seem to say shrewd choice."
Juan Cole (in my opinion - a nutcase) - George W. Bush's nomination of John Roberts, Jr. is a setback for American women, just has his policies in Iraq have produced a setback for women's rights in the Arab world. Indeed, Bush has been bad for women all around the globe.
NARAL/Pro-Choice America - don't like him - they even have a form letter on their front page to send to your Senator to poose him.
REPUBLICANS
Paul Mirengoff from Powerline - I'm over the moon...It's a great day for conservatives and for America.
John Podoretz in NYPost - A boring choice...but an interesting pick.
Jeffrey Rosen (not really a Rep but hey...) - All in all, an extremely able lawyer whose committed conservatism seems to be leavened by a judicious temperament.
Andrew Sullivan (conservative who voted Kerry) - If a re-elected Republican president cannot get such a man confirmed, something has gone terribly wrong with the system.
Fred Barnes (Weekly Standard and Fox News) - How safe was the pick? The answer is very...Is Roberts likely to join a anti-Roe bloc on the court? Probably not.
Anne Coulter (shrieking harpy and bike-with-lipstick) - ...lets ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That’s just unnatural. If a smart and accomplished person goes this long without expressing an opinion, they'd better be pursuing the Miss America title. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever...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! (she said on the radio that he's a bad choice if that's any clearer)
GOPBloggers.org - I can't say I am overjoyed....Ultimately, I think he will either be a Scalia or a Souter. I'd rather be certain he was one (where I would be overjoyed) or the other (where I would personally filibuster the nominee and move to impeach Bush....)
Polipundit - Happy?...Roberts’ paper trail isn’t very comforting. He has argued for various conservative and liberal causes in the courts, and he says he should not be judged by the clients he has argued for....I would have preferred a more solid conservative, with a solid paper trail. So I’m not particularly happy with this nomination.
FlynnFiles - There are better choices for conservatives than Roberts, but there are also worse ones....Republicans have tried the blank slate route before. That's the Supreme Court pick whose opinions are unknown--perhaps even to himself. What did it get the GOP? David Souter, for one. President Bush has twice been elected president, and his party controls 55 Senate seats. If he really is a social conservative--let's face it, this is all about Roe v. Wade--why should he operate from a position of weakness and nominate a consensus candidate?
Edward Royce (my favorite over reaction so far) - What do I think of him? Beats me. Just searched his hearing transcripts on the right to bear arms and found nothing. How is he on federalism and other limits on government power? Beats me again. Great. O'Connor with a penis. I'm supposed to be happy about this? 7 of the 9 Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans. 3 of them are acceptable, which shows you how incompetent Republicans are at choosing judges. Frankly this conservative is completely underwhelmed.Bush might think he's got some sort of mojo going on, but if Roberts doesn't turn out to be a solid conservative, and not another O'Connor, then the GOP is screwed...Sigh. F***ed by the GOP, yet again. I'm done. The GOP's donation letters go into the trash and the next time I vote might be 2008 or maybe 2010. The GOP better not expect me to give a rat's ass about them in 2006.
Bill Stuntz in New Republic - "But in the end, the political risk-taker in the White House decided not to take risks He picked the sane, smart, and safely conservative John Roberts. . . . In other words, more a Rehnquist than a Scalia. . . . But the Rehnquist model may be better suited to politics than to law."
And from Sandra Day O'Conner - "That's fabulous!"
You know if Fred Barnes and Anne Coulter say "he ain't conservative enough" that people are pissed off.
DEMOCRATS
Roger Simon - 'OK, He'll Do. Now Back to Plame!....The last thing a wartime president needs at a moment like this is a divisive Supreme Court fight."
Mickey Kaus from Slate - If the alternative to a divisive Supreme Court fight is returning the public's attention to a) the ongoing casualties in Iraq; b) a scandal involving the president's top aide and c) a highly unpopular Social Security plan, I'd say Bush's biggest fear is that Roberts isn't controversial or divisive enough. He might just sail through!
Chris Bewers - One partisan hack is deflecting attention from another....John Roberts has been filing briefs and providing legal support for recounts (Roberts worked for Bush-Cheney 2000 in Florida, and he also worked with Ken Star) on behalf of Republicans for two decades. John Roberts is a partisan hack taking the heat for another partisan hack. He has only been a judge for two years. He has been a partisan Republican hack for twenty years.
Jacob Weisburg from Slate - ...an opinion that the 50-year-old judge joined just last week in the case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld should be seriously troubling to anyone who values civil liberties....Roberts signed on to a blank-check grant of power to the Bush administration to try suspected terrorists without basic due-process protections....So, what does that say about John Roberts? Did he decide that Judge Randolph had it right down the line in Hamdan, or did he sign on to a flawed and sweeping opinion because he was auditioning for the job Bush has now picked him for? Neither prospect is reassuring.
Robert W Gordon of TPM CAfe - With Roberts Bush is obviously playing it safe...Roberts is the least likely of the rumored short listed candidates to provoke outrage.
Howard Kurtz - "The morning analyses, if you read between the lines, seem to say shrewd choice."
Juan Cole (in my opinion - a nutcase) - George W. Bush's nomination of John Roberts, Jr. is a setback for American women, just has his policies in Iraq have produced a setback for women's rights in the Arab world. Indeed, Bush has been bad for women all around the globe.
NARAL/Pro-Choice America - don't like him - they even have a form letter on their front page to send to your Senator to poose him.
REPUBLICANS
Paul Mirengoff from Powerline - I'm over the moon...It's a great day for conservatives and for America.
John Podoretz in NYPost - A boring choice...but an interesting pick.
Jeffrey Rosen (not really a Rep but hey...) - All in all, an extremely able lawyer whose committed conservatism seems to be leavened by a judicious temperament.
Andrew Sullivan (conservative who voted Kerry) - If a re-elected Republican president cannot get such a man confirmed, something has gone terribly wrong with the system.
Fred Barnes (Weekly Standard and Fox News) - How safe was the pick? The answer is very...Is Roberts likely to join a anti-Roe bloc on the court? Probably not.
Anne Coulter (shrieking harpy and bike-with-lipstick) - ...lets ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That’s just unnatural. If a smart and accomplished person goes this long without expressing an opinion, they'd better be pursuing the Miss America title. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever...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! (she said on the radio that he's a bad choice if that's any clearer)
GOPBloggers.org - I can't say I am overjoyed....Ultimately, I think he will either be a Scalia or a Souter. I'd rather be certain he was one (where I would be overjoyed) or the other (where I would personally filibuster the nominee and move to impeach Bush....)
Polipundit - Happy?...Roberts’ paper trail isn’t very comforting. He has argued for various conservative and liberal causes in the courts, and he says he should not be judged by the clients he has argued for....I would have preferred a more solid conservative, with a solid paper trail. So I’m not particularly happy with this nomination.
FlynnFiles - There are better choices for conservatives than Roberts, but there are also worse ones....Republicans have tried the blank slate route before. That's the Supreme Court pick whose opinions are unknown--perhaps even to himself. What did it get the GOP? David Souter, for one. President Bush has twice been elected president, and his party controls 55 Senate seats. If he really is a social conservative--let's face it, this is all about Roe v. Wade--why should he operate from a position of weakness and nominate a consensus candidate?
Edward Royce (my favorite over reaction so far) - What do I think of him? Beats me. Just searched his hearing transcripts on the right to bear arms and found nothing. How is he on federalism and other limits on government power? Beats me again. Great. O'Connor with a penis. I'm supposed to be happy about this? 7 of the 9 Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans. 3 of them are acceptable, which shows you how incompetent Republicans are at choosing judges. Frankly this conservative is completely underwhelmed.Bush might think he's got some sort of mojo going on, but if Roberts doesn't turn out to be a solid conservative, and not another O'Connor, then the GOP is screwed...Sigh. F***ed by the GOP, yet again. I'm done. The GOP's donation letters go into the trash and the next time I vote might be 2008 or maybe 2010. The GOP better not expect me to give a rat's ass about them in 2006.
Bill Stuntz in New Republic - "But in the end, the political risk-taker in the White House decided not to take risks He picked the sane, smart, and safely conservative John Roberts. . . . In other words, more a Rehnquist than a Scalia. . . . But the Rehnquist model may be better suited to politics than to law."
And from Sandra Day O'Conner - "That's fabulous!"
You know if Fred Barnes and Anne Coulter say "he ain't conservative enough" that people are pissed off.