High-Water Mark
Does everyone understand the significance of the fact that John Roberts - despite President Bush's having received a record number of votes on his way to reelection, despite the Republicans having a 10-seat majority in the Senate, and despite Roberts' replacing a conservative justice (thus not shifting the ideological balance of the Court) - is nevertheless kowtowing to the confirmation groundrules laid by the Democrats and their death-cultist allies?
If not, let me break it down for you. It doesn't get any easier than this. Given the facts I listed above, by all rights this should be a slam-dunk confirmation. Yet the Republicans feel the need to put forward a stealth candidate who, in turn, feels the need to reaffirm the status of Griswold and Roe and Casey as "settled precedent" under questioning from liberal Senators.
Folks, this is the high-water mark. If (1) a reelected President, (2) a 10-seat majority, and (3) the fact that the ideological balance of the Court isn't being shifted still bring about such mealy-mouthed cowardice from a Republican President, a Republican nominee, and the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee, there truly is no hope for shifting the Court significantly rightward.
I hope and pray that John Roberts and whoever is nominated to replace Sandra Day O'Connor prove me wrong, but given the political advantages the Republicans seem to be wasting with this nomination process, it's a damn shame that it even comes to that.
posted by Pro Ecclesia 8:25 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
With all due respect, I completely disagree. It may be the case that you do not believe Griswold and Roe count as law, but Judge Roberts is simply acknowledging that they are precedent, entitled to respect just as any other precedent. Other than that, he admitted nothing.
Er... he didn't simply acknowledge it as precedent. I believe he said it was 'correctly" decided:
"ROBERTS: I agree with the Griswold court's conclusion that marital privacy extends to contraception and availability of that."
Could not have been clearer.
Source (transcript).
Jay, I respectfully disagree. Roberts' answers regarding precedent are accurate and disclose nothing regarding whether or not he would vote to overturn precedent in a given case.
Could Roberts pull a Judge Pryor and call Roe an abominable constitutional decision? He could. But he would jeopardize his confirmation. It's not the lack of Democrat support that would jeopardize him, it would be the lack of RINO support. RINO's like Specter at least want to be able to defend themselves to their pro-abortion supporters with the defense that they didn't know Roberts would restrict abortion rights.
The confirmation hearings are a joke. They merely offer a platform for Senators to grandstand and please the interest groups that support them with big money. The only way they matter, is if Roberts were to actually say something of substance. Accordingly, the more Roberts makes himself obscure (even to the displeasure of those on the Right who want clarity), the better.
Boethius,
I would agree with your analysis if Roberts were still the replacement for O'Connor. But he's not. He's now replacing the Chief.
We ought to be able to make the argument that the late Chief's replacement should be at least as conservative as he was.
My problem is that we're running away from our judicial philosophy as if it's a liability. We're fighting on the terms of the guys who hold only 45 seats! Even with the RINOs, confirmation should be a slam dunk.
If it's not a slam dunk with a 55-seat Republican Senate, then maybe it's time for conservatives and pro-lifers to reassess their attachment to the Republican Party.
Post a Comment
<< Home