July 21, 2005

Roberts Not a Confident Choice

Judge John Roberts may turn out to be even more conservative than Justice Scalia. However, we don't know his judicial philosophy very well. He's only been a judge on the D.C. appelate court for two years. Even though he helped write an anti-Roe legal brief during the Reagan administration he said that landmark case settled law in a Senate nomination hearing.

Dennis York steps into the wayback machine and finds some eerie parallels between Roberts' nomination and Justice Souter's. Just replace Souter's name with Roberts' and it sounds like President Bush 41 was talking like his son.

Augustine at Redstate.org takes a positive but not a gushing "pop the champagne corks" view.

Even if Roberts is willing to trash Roe v. Wade Wisconsin Right to Life points out [PDF] there would only be four justices opposed to keeping Roe the law of the land.

President Bush was afraid to nominate someone who everone knew would be an originalist or strict constructionist. Daniel Flynn writes, "What's the point of Bush taking such a risk when he holds all the cards?" Roberts may be as conservative as Robert Bork, but no one knows. This is a sign of Republican political weakness. Odd since Bush won two Presidential elections and helped his party solidify their majorities in the Congress. You'd think with this string of victories he and other Republicans wouldn't be afraid of choosing a polarizing candidate.

Does Bush, Rove, Cheney, Frist, and Dole think the American electorate could quickly swing to the Democrats and cost the GOP political offices? Maybe. They may be looking at the poor reaction to their party's championing of the Terri Schiavo case and wonder if voters are worried about a party getting too big for its britches.

"Coulter Splits on Court Pick"

"Don't Assume Roberts Is Another Souter Just Because He Doesn't Have A Long Paper Trail"