Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image

John Roberts Nomination

22 Sep



Judiciary Committee Votes on Roberts Today

September 22, 2005 | By | 2 Comments


You can watch the Judiciary Committee vote online today at the Washington Post and at C-Span 3. I think the Post is better.

Senator Specter began with his “yes” vote at 9:40 this morning. It looks like the Democrats are pursuing a feeble “Good Cop/Bad Cop” strategy with Leahy voting yes while Biden, Kennedy, Feinstein and others go with the predictable “no.”

Look, I can’t resist: this is a “Stuck on Stupid” strategy for the Democrats. They want a more “moderate” candidate next, but why should the President bother? If he can’t get these guys for Roberts, he won’t get them for anyone else.

Roberts Vote on Thursday

September 19, 2005 | By | No Comments


The Judiciary Committee will vote on the Roberts nomination on Thursday. . .

UPDATE: Left-wingers haven’t given up yet. One group is trying to mobilize bloggers to action:

All progressive blogs must FEATURE a prominent Stop Roberts action center. If you have a web page of any kind, the absolute bare minimum is to have in the top fold of your main index page (if not on every page of your site) the toll-free Capitol telephone number (877-762-8762), plus an exhortation to call your senators specifically to oppose Roberts, and not in teeny-tiny type, but in large bold type that nobody could miss.

This cuts both ways. Do call your Senator, and ask them to Support Roberts. Ask them the key question: if you can’t support this nominee, who could you support?

Bob Hope on the Democrats

September 17, 2005 | By | One Comment

What happens when you throw a (political) war and no one shows up?? I was completely immersed in the Roberts hearing this week, but it turned out to be a lot of heat, but very little fire. More on the hearings to come, so do stop back by.

More importantly, my dad had an angiogram yesterday which revealed one of his arteries had 95% blockage. Putting the stent in was unusually difficult, the doctor said. But, he is doing very well and headed home this afternoon, and we are so grateful.

So. Here’s a little political humor for my dad . . . who will love it.


Did Bob Hope and Paulette Goddard watch the John Roberts hearings? This clip from The Ghost Breakers is 24 seconds of perfect political humor. . .

No spoilers here, so let me just say: Some things haven’t changed since 1940.

This is a movie I have to rent.

UPDATE: With thanks to my friend, Cherie. And Neddy at Kerfuffles has this clip, too.

12 Sep



John Roberts Finally Speaks

September 12, 2005 | By | 2 Comments


. . . with no notes. Major power move. Impressive.

Bush Nominates John Roberts for Chief Justice

September 5, 2005 | By | One Comment


Bush made the announcement at 8:00 from the Oval Office.


On the Left, it’s all about the quotas. From Armando at Daily Kos:

In short, Social Conservatives have gotten their nominee – his name is John Roberts. For replacing O’Connor, Bush must pick a Justice like O’Connor, not Scalia, Thomas or Rehnquist.

No. No. No. There is no such thing as an ideological quota per seat on the Court. Or gender. Or race.

Women for Roberts: It’s the Constitution, Not the Chromosomes

August 24, 2005 | By | One Comment

At 10:00, I’ll be attending a “Women for Roberts” press conference at the National Press Club. Check back for pictures — I’ll do my best to get our MC, the elusive (and so reasoned and audacious!) Kathryn Lopez of NRO on film. . .

Here’s my statement:

“The Best Guarantor of Women’s Rights:

The Constitution, not the Double X Chromosome. . .”

WASHINGTON, D.C., Aug. 24 – President Bush has been criticized for nominating a man to fill retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s seat on the Supreme Court. The National Organization for Women argues that appointing a woman committed to “upholding equality for all” would have been the better choice. Even Justice O’Connor herself remarked that Roberts was “good in every way, except he’s not a woman.”

But there should not be a “women’s seat” on the Supreme Court. The best guarantor of women’s rights is the Constitution, not the double X chromosome.

Senator Ken Salazar (D, CO) wrote to the President expressing “disappointment” that the nominee was not a woman. Invoking his own two daughters, Salazar said we should be sending young women the message that “their gender creates no limitations for them.” And that the Roberts nomination sends “the opposite message.”

Senator Salazar is wrong. I have three daughters. I would prefer they get the message that their achievements are based on accomplishment, not tokenism and quotas. . . We will know women have gained true equality only when lists of potential Supreme Court nominees include men . . . and women. . . for every seat on the Court, not just some arbitrarily designated “women’s seats.”

04 Aug



Targeting the Dancing Boy and the Demure Girl

August 4, 2005 | By | 9 Comments


Matt Drudge is reporting that the New York Times is “investigating” the adoption records of John and Jane Roberts’ kids.

I said it was hardball.

04 Aug



DEVELOPING: Roberts Involved with Romer v. Evans

August 4, 2005 | By | 9 Comments

The LA Times is reporting that John Roberts gave pro bono advice to gay rights groups, serving on a moot court, in the Romer v. Evans case while a Partner at Hogan and Hartson.


Gryphmon’s Grumbles has more. A salute to Mudville Gazette.

Nathan Newman is enjoying the story.


July 26, 2005 | By | No Comments

the blogger

who dares not speak his name

he lieth, for his name is Shame

with prose off-colour

of foulest humour

…his fame: Dishonour.

With apologies to Lord Alfred Bruce Douglas.