|
|
|
Jewish World Review July 21, 2005 / 14 Tammuz, 5765 George Bush's Supreme pick By Debra J. Saunders
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
It looks as if all the interests groups and nattering nabobs
outside the White House have conspired to make placing his first U.S.
Supreme Court nominee on the bench easy for President Bush.
The Left certainly has done its part.
For five years, Senate Democrats on the far left have hurled
invectives at hot-button conservatives — especially female and minority
judges. They've only got so much mud left — and they can't afford to waste
it.
Nonetheless, they will hurl more at Bush nominee John G. Roberts
Jr. and waste it. It's the only play they know.
Moveon.org quickly dismissed Roberts as a "right-wing lawyer and
corporate lobbyist" who should not be confirmed. That's the best that they
can do: Attack Roberts for being conservative and working for a Washington,
D.C. law firm.
Feminist Majority Foundation President Eleanor Smeal was reduced
to complaining that she is "dismayed" Bush nominated a man and demanding
that the Senate not confirm Roberts unless he promises not to overturn Roe v
Wade.
Push that line, and the White House can push back. Abortion
rights's advocates want more than support for Roe — they want a pledge to
find that the U.S. Constitution reserves the right for 15-year-olds to get
abortions behind their parents's backs. Not much support for that.
Senate moderates cinched the Roberts nomination in May. That's
when the so-called Gang of 14 — seven GOP and seven Democratic senators —
announced that they would not go along with judicial filibusters. They
promised to engage in this stalling tactic — that prevents a full vote —
only under "extraordinary circumstances."
Translation: They will vote for a solid conservative who is not
overly ideological.
And here he is. The Legal Times's Stuart Taylor described
Roberts as "a good bet to be the kind of judge we should all want to have —
all of us, that is, who are looking less for congenial ideologues than for
professionals committed to impartial application of the law. If the Senate
buries Roberts — again — it would be an outrage." Taylor wrote those words
in 2002, when Roberts was a nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals. The
Senate did bury Roberts by preventing a Senate vote, just as they buried him
earlier after President George H.W. Bush nominated him in 1992. In 2003,
when President George W. Bush re-nominated Roberts, the Senate confirmed him
unanimously.
If not one Democrat objected to Roberts two years ago, how can
the Dems filibuster now?
Conservative groups had threatened to walk away from President
Bush if they didn't get a conservative judge. If Bush wouldn't do battle for
them, they argued, then he wasn't worth electing.
Bush was clever: He gave the Right a conservative, but —
barring unexpected news — the activists won't get their battle. Roberts is
known more for his brains than his ideas.
The right-leaning Progress for America has pledged "an initial
$18 million to combat dishonest attacks on Judge Roberts." But it's not
clear that this pricey campaign is even necessary.
No fight. No fun. So flashy conservative Ann Coulter complained
that Bush picked "a Rorschach blot" and a "Souter in Roberts's clothing."
The more the far Right complains that he might be a centrist, the better
Roberts looks.
Besides, the more accurate description would be: He is a jurist
who knows how to write laws from a conservative angle without using loaded
language. I read what I thought might be Roberts' most controversial
decision: It upheld government actions in a public-relations disaster of a
case. As Roberts wrote, authorities handcuffed, searched and detained a
12-year-old girl "all for eating a single French fry on the (Washington)
Metro."
Because Metro police cited adults but detained children, the
girl's family sued, citing unequal treatment. Roberts wisely noted that the
Constitution discriminates by age — it lists minimum ages for members of
Congress and president — and added that while there is reason to object to
discrimination based on old age, "The concern that the state does not treat
adults like children surely does not prevent it from treating children like
children."
"No one is happy about the events that led to this litigation,"
Roberts began the opinion. But the law was constitutional.
Then, pundits were sure Bush would pick a Latino. He didn't.
Next, Bush will pick a woman. Laura Bush is pressuring him to do so. (As
if.) And he didn't.
Tuesday, the scoop was: Bush will pick Edith Brown Clement.
Oops. Wrong. No, he'll pick Edith Jones. Oops. Wrong again.
John G. Roberts is the real nominee. Bush looks brilliant for
picking a conservative nominee who already passed through the Senate without
a "no" vote. What Bush did was so obvious — picking a popular
conservative — that everyone missed it.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Comment JWR contributor Debra J. Saunders's column by clicking here. © 2005, Creators Syndicate |
Arnold Ahlert | |||||||||||
