Fantastic.

Not this means a hill of beans to the usual contingent of screaming harridans from NARAL, NOW, et al.

Harry Reid has already signalled that he is out for Roberts' blood by backhanding Roberts' legal resume and then demanding that Roberts' "needs to demonstrate to the Senate that he has a commitment to core American values of freedom, equality and fairness."

Reid knows that Roberts cannot answer any specific question about cases that may come before him.

This is the strategy behind the clearly psychotic Dem desperation. Screw facts, smear anyone that GW nominates.

feh

Hmmm.

As a solid conservative this is definitely not one of my preferred candidates. As far as I can see, this guy has the same basic background as O'Connor. I.e. nobody knows WTF this guys is going to do.

Just great. 25 years of effort. 25 years of donating to the goddamn GOP. Screwed again.

Now the people on FoxNews are talking that this candidate will placate the left and right (yeah F*** that!) and the next nomination will be the solid conservative.

WTF!

Someone explain to me why conservatives bother donating anything to the GOP? We don't get Roe vs. Wade, we don't get illegal immigration, we don't get fiscal conservatism, we don't get small government. So far we don't get a goddamn thing.

F*** the GOP.

Hmmm.

Good. Let's sink this bastard quick so we can get a real conservative nominated.

ed,
I feel your pain!

I am disappointed. Non-the-less a disheartening choice. With all the talk of a minority and/or a woman as a replacement and all the lip service diversity, he choose a white male. Well qualified, yes. A bold move to possibly find the best of the best, yes. But, still a white male.

I have no issue with his record or his credentials. Yet, I am disappointed. This nomination was an opportunity for the President to unite the country and not divide; he missed that mark. This was payback for the base and only the base. Sorry Mister President, for me, this is a disappointment.

I wanted Janice Rogers Brown!

Not quite at Ed's level (yet)

But, still a white male. ... I have no issue with his record or his credentials. Yet, I am disappointed. This nomination was an opportunity for the President to unite the country and not divide; he missed that mark.

Damn Bush for not nominating a token!

There's one really big question in my mind--whether this guy is a true federalist, or whether we have more micromanagement and nanny-state decisions in store if he's confirmed.

ed is kidding, right?

Team Lefty didn't waste any time coming to the conclusion that Roberst son is a transgendered druggy Simply amazing.

quoting Hugh Hewitt:

Judge John Roberts may be the smartest lawyer I have known, and he combines that intellect with a graciousness and good humor that will make it hard for any except the most extreme ideolouges to oppose him. Here's his bio, but it cannot fully convey the great intellectual force which Justice Roberts will bring to the SCOTUS.

Full disclosure: Judge Roberts and I were colleagues in the White House Counsel's Office in 1985/1986. A colleague of his from his Hogan & Hartson days, Dan Poneman, was a guest on the program earlier and a transcript of that conversation will be posted at Radioblogger.com. Poneman is a center-left specialist on national security issues, having served both the first President Bush and President Clinton on the NSC. Poneman's enthusiasm for the Roberts nomination will be mirrored across official Washington which will have a very hard time summoning any energy to smear as well regarded and liked man as Judge Roberts.

Geez, ed...are you an extreme ideolougue or a moby?

...inquiring minds...

Ed,

We have to get someone in DURING W's current term. Or more to the point, quickly.

Contrary to recent news, there WILL be another SCOTUS seat opening up before W leaves.

This one first, then the next one who sets the rest of the legacy.

Hmmmm.

"Geez, ed...are you an extreme ideolougue or a moby?"

I'm a guy who realises that 7 of the 9 Supreme Court justices were appointed by "conservative" Republicans. Remember O'Connor? Reagan appointed her. Remember Souter? Bush 41 appointed him.

Look at Souter's damn bio

See any words being repeated about Roberts? See anything in common?

Here's the deal. Roberts doesn't have a long paper trail or tons of scholarship. Nobody knows how this guy is going to vote. People are assuming that he'll be a conservative and that he'll STAY A CONSERVATIVE. But Souter showed that's a damn foolish thing to think. And so did O'Connor.

So am I pissed off? Yes.

Why? Because I've been here before.

Welcome to the "I've been F***ed by the GOP, yet again" club.

Hmmm.

"This one first, then the next one who sets the rest of the legacy."

Which means what? That we'll end up with yet another court where solid conservatives are in the minority?

So someone explain to me what the GOP has done for conservatives that makes all the sacrifices, donations and activism worthwhile.

Go ahead and make a list. It'll be a damn short one.

Consider the alternative.

I think it has been worth it.

Also,

Cornyn is strongly behind him, that means quite a bit to me.

Hmmmm.

"Consider the alternative.

I think it has been worth it."

Doesn't it strike you as odd that the GOP has been talking about drawing back judicial activism by appointing conservatives to the bench for years now? What was one of the primary issues in the 2000 election? The 2002 election? The 2004 election?

And yet here we are. Why is Roberts acceptable to you? Because he might have an easier passage through the Senate. Why is that? Because Bush and Frist didn't push to change filibuster rules. I'm still getting donation requests from FRIST, and yes it's about those horrible judicial activsts and that he needs my money to combat them. So being less conservative is now an advantage. How about that.

Joy.

Move-on.org owns the Democratic Party. Conservatives are just renting.

And no, I'm not some damn stupid Moby. I'm a fiscal conservative who donated money to, and voted for, Bush.

So I'm not a Moby, but I'm evidently one damn stupid a**hole. That fact doesn't lie.

Consider the alternative.

I think it has been worth it.

When Republicans act like they're the minority party in congress, they're counting on us to think this.

Hmmm.

"Cornyn is strongly behind him, that means quite a bit to me."

Did you read that bio I linked to? Would it mean anything if I told you I grew up in New Hampshire? You know, Souter's home state and in the same time period when he was a judge? Hell I supported him for the Supreme Court. Yeah, that turned out well didn't it.

Oh christ. I'm going to bed. If I'm lucky this is all a bad dream.

If nobody knows what Roberts is going to do how is it possible to decide we've been screwed? Does that determination come directly from the psychic hotline? You reading tea leaves, Ed? I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt here and continue to support the right, people opting for the "all or nothing" program usually get the latter. You might get what you want from the republicans, you certainly won't from the democrats. Even if you are right about being screwed I have serious doubts about this being the only shot at it. Besides, there's always the next term in the White House and there are sure to be more justices retire, might as well do everything we can to see that it's another republican choosing the replacement, unless you think that Hilary's choice will be more to your liking....

Is it just me, or is this guy Frank Burns' twin?

http://www.nndb.com/people/852/000031759/frank-burns-sized.jpg

I'm a queer 66% libertarian who thinks national strength is founded on banking insitutions and ecological health (IE agricultural output). In '00 I voted McCain then Nader. In '04 I walked precincts for Dean because his biggest funders were amateur lobbyists (instead of pros) and voted for Kerry over Bush because changing our PR in Europe could have saved $10's of billions in Iraq II as we gather resources to fight WWIV against China. Most pols I could take or leave so long as they don't accomplish anything ideological and don't muck things up too much with incompetance.

The Wall Street Journal conservatives are greedy b*t*rds but I'm basically OK with their policies. And the way I gist this new guy, he's a slap in the face to the social right and a big juicy BJ for the WSJ crowd.

If he's really another Souter, well... a girl can dream, can't she?

This was a safe pick for Bush. Ivy League background, no paper trail, congenial vibe ... Bush apparently pre-vetted him on the Hill, so he'll definitely be confirmed. Roberts IS conservative by any measure, but the irony is, the guy who nominated him really ISN'T, if you think about it ...

I've been telling my conserv. friends for years that Bush will almost always disappoint you. He and Rove will set you up during the campaign and then pull the rug out from under you once he's elected. Ed's right, whether on immigration or spending, or Medicare or this massive nanny-state education policy or foreign interventionism, Bush is not actually a conservative -- he's Woodrow Wilson with a better election strategist.

(though I actually give him credit for defying the conventional wisdom and going for the white guy instead of pandering to Hispanics or women -- I guess he'll catch them on the next go-round...)

Face it, party people, your guy's a Methodist -- a middle grounder -- who plays Christian conservative to win elections. Roberts will move the court to the right, for sure, so no need to sweat that, but Bush wasn't about to risk his legacy to throw you a Bork.

Besides, you're almost sure to get Scalia (shudder) as your next Chief Justice ...

Looks like we had a little server hickup. Seems to be all better now...

Great choice!

Too bad he's not from Rochester. ;)

If he is a Con. then the balance of the Court has shifted; which is good, and that is the real prize.

ReidBlog's posts (July 20, 2005 01:34/01:34 AM)

Your interpretation seems closest to the mark so far. Bush is not dependably conservative (except for religious dogma which isn't excessively strident) in the "classic Reaganesque" mold.

The selection of Roberts seems solid but I know nothing of his history. I'm sure we'll get lots of spin as to what he "believes" in the coming weeks. Hopefully Roberts was selected on merit and not on old-boy Harvard networking. From the talking heads, I half expect him to walk on water (based on credentials and not deism).

This does seem like a milquetoast selection politically but only to the degree that it is not too polar. I do give Bush credit for selecting a presumed WASP and not reflexively fitting the color- or gender-coded peg of the day into the PC hole. That was a surprise to me and may actually signify some thought that he really did seek a candidate with a stellar record. Whether or not his star is truly that bright remains to be seen, but that would apply to any candidate. In the current political atmosphere, I don't think Bush can select anyone that is too "extreme". Remember, Bush is working on legacy now and his second term has not flowed too smoothly. He needs a full court and less diversion to see that his agenda starts flowing again, not that the court will directly advance his agenda. It's just that each battle, and this is a supreme one in every sense of the word, detracts from his and the nation's focus. Why give the opposing party more ammo to sabotage your work?

Yes, ed. I understand your frustration though we may disagree on exactly what Bush should prioritize. I expect a very conservative selection when Rehnquist steps down and for Scalia to head the court. That is a legacy Bush would likely prefer and one which will not rock the boat quite so much at a very important juncture in our country's history. Sure, the waters will be rocky whenever a change to that court is made, but a sense of timing is important in surviving the swells.

Anyway, I look forward to the day that Scalia chairs though I respect Rehnquist tremendously.

Ed, you sound like a dog that's been kicked so often you can't believe you aren't being kicked again.

I can't think of a shrewder pick. A Federalist whose wife is a member of Feminists for Life? Just sublime, IMHO.

It just seems to me that there are still busloads of Cons out there who want the filibuster showdown more than a solid conservative jurist.

If he is a Con. then the balance of the Court has shifted; which is good, and that is the real prize.

Indeed -- even if he is merely more reliably conservative than O'Connor, it's a net gain.

Judicial activists are about making wholesale changes to the law at a breakneck pace -- not originalists. And even adding a Perfect Storm-style originalist (so-called because getting one confirmed would require a Perfect Storm of political and legal circumstances; a once-in-a-hundred lifetimes event) to this Court isn't going to be enough to start yanking out bad activist precedents that need to be yanked out. It would take two or three Perfect Storm originalists to make that much of a difference.

Nobody likes being told that a crap sandwich with mustard is better than a crap sandwich without mustard -- but it is.

Anybody go and read Souter's bio in that link I provided? Every last thing that people are saying about Roberts, is the same thing people were saying about Souter. And almost the same thing about O'Connor.

Yeah, you think this will work out? You think Roberts will *stay* a conservative?

Yeah right.