Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Souter Redux?

We're about 18 hours into the Roberts nomination, and the one thing I'm still not hearing anything about is his judicial philosophy, which is ultimately all that really matters.

Everyone agrees that he's a good guy, and we know he has two small children. Obviously he's smart. But what's his view of the Constitution, and of the judiciary's role in interpreting it? Why don't we hear anything about the most important issue?

Ann Coulter is issuing a much-needed caveat (though she would probably characterize it as being much stronger than a mere caveat):
So all we know about him for sure is that he can't dance and he probably doesn't know who Jay-Z is. Other than that, he is a blank slate. Tabula rasa. Big zippo. Nada. Oh, yeah...we also know he's argued cases before the Supreme Court. Big deal; so has Larry Fynt's attorney.

But unfortunately, other than that that, we don’t know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever.

...It means absolutely nothing that NARAL and Planned Parenthood attack him: They also attacked Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Hackett Souter.

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....

...If a smart and accomplished person goes this long without expressing an opinion, they'd better be pursuing the Miss America title.
Assurances from the administration that he's conservative are not enough. Having the media tell me he's conservative is not enough (since they think Sandra Day O'Connor is conservative). Knowledge that he's a good person isn't enough. I want to hear some reasoning, see some rulings, and hear some judicial philosophy pronto.

Even if he turns out to be excellent, why should we have to wonder? As Coulter says:
We also have a majority in the House, state legislatures, state governorships, and have won five of the last seven presidential elections — seven of the last ten!

We're the Harlem Globetrotters now - why do we have to play the Washington Generals every week?

Conservatism is sweeping the nation, we have a fully functioning alternative media, we’re ticked off and ready to avenge Robert Bork...and Bush nominates a Rorschach blot.

Even as they are losing voters, Democrats don’t hesitate to nominate reliable left-wing lunatics like Ruth Bader Ginsberg to lifetime sinecures on the High Court. And the vast majority of Americans loathe her views.

As I’ve said before, if a majority of Americans agreed with liberals on abortion, gay marriage, pornography, criminals’ rights, and property rights –liberals wouldn’t need the Supreme Court to give them everything they want through invented “constitutional” rights invisible to everyone but People For the American Way.
I just don't understand why we have to slink around as if our true views are unworthy of the Supreme Court. They're not, as election after election keeps showing.

I won't give up on Roberts until I have enough information to understand him. But it's proving very difficult to find--and it oughtn't be that way.

No comments: