Chad Tidings By Richard Cohen (on USSC Roberts nomination)

[papau]

From the "liberal" Richard Cohen's column: "It seems to me that it is the Democratic Party that has a problem. It can either come to terms with reality or appear, to much of the country, both petulant and in the grip of special interests, particularly the pro-choice lobby." ABCNote suggests the Dems only success, if they are successful, might be in making the Solicitor General internal documents famous for not being released (as Bush says he is withholding the memos so as to protect the candor of government lawyers and with the Democrats claiming a right to know the nominee's views), in "demonizing" Mrs. Roberts (whose group "Feminists for Life of America" has been filing legal briefs before the high court challenging the constitutionality of abortion), and perhaps getting a little bit of media on Judge Roberts' time in private practice including Florida 2000. (Florida 2000 stories at http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-recount21jul21,1,1228307.story?coll=la-news-a_section
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/21/politics/21florida.html
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/nation/epaper/2005/07/21/m1a_flroberts_0721.html
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/07/21/news_pf/State/Roberts_gave_advice_d.shtml

================================================================
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072002094.html

Chad Tidings

By Richard Cohen
Post
Thursday, July 21, 2005; A23



Another hanging chad has dropped. His name is John G. Roberts Jr., and he undoubtedly will turn out to be opposed to abortion rights, affirmative action, an expansive view of federal powers and a reading of the Constitution that takes a properly suspicious view of the state's embrace of religion. In these and other matters -- the death penalty, for instance -- he is expected to substantially reflect the views of George W. Bush, the man who nominated him to the Supreme Court, because that was what the election of 2000 and its sequel were all about. You hang enough chads, and you get to change the Supreme Court.

My predictions on how Roberts will vote when he (almost certainly) gets to the court are not based on a close reading of his scholarly writings -- there are almost none -- or a parsing of his decisions as an appellate judge. It is based entirely on the supposition that Bush has taken the ideological measure of his nominee and has been assured by others that Roberts is a conservative, maybe deeply so. The White House in turn has passed that message to conservative groups. They all gave praise. "The president is a man of his word," said the very important Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. "He promised to nominate someone along the lines of a Scalia or a Thomas, and that is exactly what he has done." God save us all.

Actually, the president has done no such thing. As opposed to Clarence Thomas, the oddest choice since the mad emperor Caligula proposed making his horse a consul of Rome, Roberts comes glittering with dazzling academic bona fides and, from a liberal perspective, seditious geniality. And, as opposed to Antonin Scalia, he has not managed to alert the opposition with ideological writings that are a joy to read and a fright to ponder. From what everyone is saying, had Roberts not chosen law, he would have made a dandy salesman. Everyone likes him. He sorely lacks the villainous aspect of the storied Robert Bork.

Bork's nomination fight is frequently cited nowadays, often by those who think a great injustice was done. Not so. What doomed Bork was what a Post editorial from the time (1987) called his "almost frightening detachment from . . . the real-world consequences of his views" -- particularly in the sensitive area of civil rights. It was with the utmost reluctance that The Post opposed Bork's nomination, even predicting that his rejection would "pave the way to a demagogic, highly politicized future where confirmation proceedings are concerned." Nonetheless, because Bork suggested that the law was more important than justice, the paper opposed him. So, ultimately, did a comfy majority of the Senate.<snip>

Also the WP on the abortion brief he wrote as deputy SG for Bush 41
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072002516.html

On being deferential to the executive branch
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072002322.html

And the Wall Street Journal expects Roberts to "move the High Court marginally, but importantly, back toward where it was before Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg replaced Byron White in 1993."