Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image

John Roberts Nomination

25 Jul




July 25, 2005 | By | 3 Comments


Ann Althouse

Ann Althouse weighs in on what she is calling “Plaidgate.”

To her credit, Ann isn’t backing down:

But you have to see the sequence of photos of Roberts grouped with lots of men and not one woman. The overall picture of enthusiastic male comradery is quite strong. Yet, of course, the NYT has complete deniability. Shame on me, they can say, for reading anything into it. That’s why I considered it “subtly constructed.”

That’s key, the “complete deniability.” That’s what caught my attention, the question: Was the piece hardball politics? Bob Sikes, wrote in Ann’s comments, that the Times profile was “a fine, well-crafted ‘dog-whistle’ piece.”

Anyway, Ann does have some very smart reader-commenters. (Meaning: they agree with me!) One man, Dirty Harry responded to Ann’s “plausible deniability” refrain by saying:

No, they don’t [have deniability]. What [the NYTimes has] is a long track record of brilliantly written but biased hit pieces. And they’re the only ones getting “outted” in the dust-up.

Then lastly, Jay Random zeroes in on an important point:

Yoest . . .led with the pants and emphasized them by including the picture. She reinforces your point, . . .but has also selected a single detail to highlight in order to expose or accentuate how ludicrous and contrived the implied insinuations truly are.

He gets it. Funny how the Lefties in their rush to brand me humourless, missed the joke right in front of them.


Bill Kristol says that the confirmation will be a battle. The Americablog throws a dud bomb, Is Supreme Court Nominee Roberts Lying Already?


Little Miss Attila gives us a flavor of the upcoming months with Anita and Clarence; John and TBA.

Villainous Company has the true Liberal Litmus Test. Tip of the bonnet to MaxedOutMama and John Roberts the Catholic.

25 Jul



Hillary and Judge Roberts

July 25, 2005 | By | 2 Comments


From Waco Kid

This is the reason why conservatives should be concerned about Hillary and the next presidential election: She says she’s not opposing Roberts, from,

I look forward to the Committee’s findings so that I can make an informed decision…

In Clinton undecided on Roberts, MSNBC quotes Hillary,

I’m going to wait for the hearings and listen carefully to what’s asked and answered…I really know only what I read in the paper.


Then she laughed and said, “I don’t have any inside information – do you have any?”

Hillary isn’t stupid.


Outside the Beltway has Your Nation’s Capital buzzing at Traffic Jam.

Right Thinking Girl reports Hillary Builds Moderate Credentials,

Speaking to the Democratic Leadership Council, the centrist group that helped her husband, Bill Clinton, secure the White House, the senator delivered a broad speech that touched on foreign policy, health care, education and fissures within her own party.

“It’s high time for a ceasefire,” Clinton said.

23 Jul



Salazar: Trying to Enshrine the Women’s Chair

July 23, 2005 | By | 2 Comments


The Women’s Chair?

Courtesy Waco Kid!

Catching up with the Women’s Chair meme. Apparently, Justice O’Connor subscribes to the notion. When the Washington Post caught up with her the day after the Roberts nomination, O’Connor replied: “He’s good in every way, except he’s not a woman.”

Another policy-maker pushing this idea that O’Connor’s seat should have been reserved for a woman was Colorado’s Senator Ken Salazar who wrote this letter to the President:


Senator Ken Salazar(D, CO)

July 20, 2005

Dear President Bush:

. . . The fact you have not selected a distinguished woman in the mold of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is not a reason for disqualification. However, I want to express my disappointment that you have missed an opportunity to help create an America that includes women at all levels of our nation’s government.

If your nominee to the United States Supreme Court is confirmed, the face of the United States Supreme Court, with nine justices, will have only one woman. And in an America that has struggled over her history to include women, I do not believe this is a healthy portrayal of the kind of America we should be building.

Twenty-four years ago, President Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day O’Connor as the first woman justice of the United States Supreme Court. She served in that role with distinction. Justice O’Connor’s appointment created a milestone in history that was the culmination of the work and struggles of men and women over centuries to ensure that women received fair and equal treatment in America. As we all well know, women were not granted even the right to vote in America until the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920.

You and I both have two daughters. The profound message we should be giving to them is that their gender creates no limitations for them to live up to their God-given potential. Yet, I fear that with the loss of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor from the United States Supreme Court, we are sending the opposite message.


Ken Salazar

U.S. Senator

cc: Sen. Arlen Specter

Sen. Patrick Leahy

Well, I’ve got three daughters and I would prefer for them not to get the message that their acheivements are based on tokenism and quotas. . .

Via KLO at NRO Bench Memos. . .

Ringside for History: John Roberts for Supreme Court

July 21, 2005 | By | One Comment


White House photo

by Eric Draper

This has been a great day for those of us who are accused of being idealists.

The President did what he promised to do.

He nominated a man who appears to take the Constitution seriously. And he didn’t cave in to gender politics. He didn’t make the O’Connor vacancy into the “women’s chair.”

There are some conservatives today who are raising doubts. Ann Coulter in her reliably no-holds-barred way wonders if Roberts will be another Souter:

Finally, let’s ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That’s just unnatural.

. . .If a smart and accomplished person goes this long without expressing an opinion, they’d better be pursuing the Miss America title.

And Fred Barnes thinks that Roberts is a “safe pick” but that he won’t vote to overturn Roe v. Wade:

But twitter dream of the day when there are five votes on the court to reverse the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion. Now there are only three. Is Roberts likely to join a anti-Roe bloc on the court? Probably not.

Those criticisms, particularly Fred’s, give me pause. But here is John Hinderaker’s response to Ann’s article:

Ann is just wrong about this one. Frankly, it’s hard to believe she’s serious. Calling John Roberts a “stealth” candidate is ridiculous; he has been on everyone’s short list of preferred conservatives, along with Michael Luttig and Michael McConnell, for a long time. When David Souter was nominated, we–and conservatives everywhere–said, “David who?” When Roberts was nominated, we broke out the bubbly. Ann occasionally goes a bit overboard, but I can’t remember a time when she has been this totally misguided, and, as I said, I have a hard time believing she’s serious. Maybe, as Roger Simon suggests, it’s triangulation.

And, I like the fact that Roberts’ wife is legal counsel for Feminists for Life, and used to be Executive Vice President of their Board. Good group.

Of course we really don’t know for sure. But people who know him are saying that he won’t “grow in office” as has Anthony Kennedy, and so many others who get seduced by the Washington power culture. John Roberts appears to be a great jurist and a really good person. The latter an even more important point in my book.

Let me give the last word to Bill Kristol. Okay, I admit: partly because he said some awfully nice things about me in his column today — thank you, Bill — but in truth, because I agree with him. With this nominee, the President showed integrity and a political courage rarely seen in this town:

By simply going for the best person, by not worrying about walking out to the podium last night accompanied by a white male, Bush did something important and courageous. He showed that he knows that on really significant matters, one has to ignore political correctness and political pandering, and even political convenience. For this lesson, as well as for an intellectually impressive and politically sound choice, Bush deserves a lot of credit.

* * *

Greyhawk of Mudville gives us an update on African politics and Open Post . . .

19 Jul



The Women’s Chair on the Supreme Court: Fill it with a Man

July 19, 2005 | By | 9 Comments


I’ve got a piece up, “The Women’s Chair,” over at NRO today about the Supreme Court nomination. So welcome NRO readers.

The talk surrounding the Supreme Court over the weekend centered on the possibility of a female nominee. But my argument is that the President shouldn’t choose a woman:

But as a woman, with a vested interest in the advancement of women writ large, my counsel for the President is somewhat different:

Mr. President, please nominate a man for the seat Justice O’Connor is vacating.”

I understand the political realities behind the make-it-a-qualified-woman recommendations. The theory is that a woman would be easier to get through the coming confirmation-cum-political Armageddon we now face. That might be true. Or, it might not.

But that way lies an underappreciated constitutional danger and a hidden hypocrisy: While the Right justly decries the Court’s recent transformation into a quasi-legislative body, they have conceded too easily as identity politics turns the Court into another vehicle for “representation” instead of constitutional interpretation.

We’ll know soon: the President is scheduled to announce his choice tonight at 9:00. Washington has been abuzz all day today with the rumor that he had chosen Judge Edith Clement. However, ABC is now reporting that Clement got a call from the White House today telling her that she is not the nominee.

Read the rest over at NRO and let me know what you think. . .

Much as I would love to see some of the women who have been suggested seated on the bench, I do hope for the greater good that this means the President isn’t going to go for filling “the women’s chair.” The really brilliant move would be to put a man in this time — to demonstrate true gender-blindess — and then put a terrific woman in next time, or, even better . . . as Chief Justice.

Wouldn’t NOW just have a fit?

Read More