MyDD :: Is Ann Coulter [gag] right?

Is Ann Coulter [gag] right?

by jcjcjc, Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 12:03:25 PM EST

http://anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=66

On the subject of the appointment of John Roberts as an associate justice of the Supreme Court:

"[ . . .] lets ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That's just unnatural. "

Well? I'll be damned. When Ann make just a general, apolitical statement like that it kind of makes sense!

She adds: "If a smart and accomplished person goes this long without expressing an opinion, they'd better be pursuing the Miss America title."

Again, Ann has a damned point.

What is up with Roberts? Clearly Bush is trying to sneak through a stealth candidate who stands for nothing. And, there is no question that unless there is a real fight over the nomination, this guy is going to burn someone badly.

I think Dems need to do everything to pile on. FUD: fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

I was talking about this in an earlier thread:
http://www.mydd.com/comments/2005/7/19/215530/777/25#25

The GOP is worried about Roberts. We need to help them worry. Everything in our power to make Roberts sound like a stealth candidate needs to be out there.

Anything that makes the GOP nervous about Roberts is good.

Especially consider if the entire Souter scenario plays out: he gets confirmed, joins the bench, and goes liberal!

The GOP would be crippled by that outcome.

Even if he turns into another Sandy O'Connor, the GOPers are going to feel pretty bad. They may say they like Reagan, but they're disinclined to following his actual actions.

The GOP already hates this process as it is. They don't do a good job handling it.

Worse, this has already FUD'ed their feelings, even when offered up by the Supreme Leader GeeDub.

The current Bush-GOP alignment is based on solidity. Never waiver, never fade, never doubt, never apologize, never retract.

This has been, by far, the most tepid the GOP has been since Bush strolled up to the bar. And it isn't like Social Security, where the bastards can just put off the vote indefinitely.

Anything that helps that is good.

So, let's support Ann Coulter. The truth is, she's right on this one: what the hell is the deal with Roberts?

Who sits through three Presidents and doesn't make a single public declaration of their positions?

Aren't Republicans supposed to have a mental disorder that triggers spontaneous spouting of wacky bullshit?

Tags: (all tags)

Permalink :: 4 Comments :: Post a Comment

andrew sullivan (none / 0)

has a run down of rethugs who are dissapointed including Barnes. It made me feel better to read them complain.

by aiko on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 01:18:12 PM EST

Sorry, I don't buy it.. (none / 0)

This man, from what I have heard, interprets contracts as they were back in the pre-Depression days..

From

http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/John_Roberts_Report.pdf

"Published Writing and Public Statements
As a law student, Roberts authored two law review articles arguing for the courts to interpret clauses of the Constitution in ways that would weaken key worker, consumer, and environmental protections.39 Interestingly, he advanced interpretations of both the Takings and Contracts Clauses that went against long-standing precedent and explicitly rejected "plain language," or literal interpretation of the Constitution's language.

In the first article, Roberts offered his view of the Takings Clause, which requires that the government give "just compensation" for takings of "private property." Roberts claimed that courts trying to ascertain its meaning, "have not been significantly aided by the words of the clause, which are incapable of being given simple, clear-cut meaning... Indeed, the very phrase `just compensation' suggests that the language of the clause must be informed by changing norms of justice."40

After rejecting on various grounds several interpretations of the clause traditionally used by courts - i.e. physical intrusion onto an owner's property as anachronistic in a largely non-agrarian society, "noxious use" as too value-laden, and Justice Holmes' 1922 "diminution of value" test as too vague, Roberts argued for a "constrained" model based on a utility-based test proposed by Professor Frank Michelman. Under that model, parties made unwhole or "insecure" by regulation should be compensated accordingly."

by ultraworld on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 04:06:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It would mean that EVERY aspect of a contract (none / 0)

would probably have to be negotiated separately.. and explicitly...

For example, a contract to buy a bottle of water entered into at the 7-11 along with separate, other contracts for the other 99 items in your cart, might not come with an implicit contract that that water was safe to drink..

That would cost more..and it would have to be written out..

No more assumptions.. is that it?

Basically, the way things were in the Dark Ages...

by ultraworld on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 04:11:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There's a good example why change happens (none / 0)

That sort of popsitionis just untenable.

As for the possibility he will change . . . big deal.

To be honest, the number one goal is to sow FUD with the GOP. They already cringe at having to do this.

Let's face the numbers:

2 justices are Dem nominees
7 are GOP

That we have a 5-4 split is a testament to how often the GOP fucks this sort of thing up.

by jcjcjc on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 11:45:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.