THREE STRIKES AGAINST JOHN ROBERTS

For anyone with the least bit of political savvy, it’s easy to figure out. Bush has made an excellent political choice. Given the beating he has taken on the lower court appointees, he obviously didn’t want to appoint another Bork when he should be expected to win with his own party in the driver’s seat. A loss would be a double blow to his political image. He would appear as a weakling who is unable to overcome the opposition and to keep his own party in line.

Here’s the political setup:
1. Roberts is a clean-cut, good-looking, young fellow with a conservative image. He is photogenic and personable.
2. He has no political baggage or controversial decisions. Little is known about him. As an unknown quantity, he is inoffensive and raises no hackles.
3. He is religious and easily portrayed as a family man. Roberts can easily gull the rabid religious rabble among GW’s supporters.
4. The religious right will slavishly follow the conservative establishment and enthusiastically line up behind the man.
5. The radical liberals will give only token opposition. There will be no furor and deadlock as in the Bork nomination.
6. The nomination will be confirmed, Bush will be victorious and vindicated in the eyes of his supporters, and no one will know where Judge Roberts stands until he is seated on the court and then it will be too late.

From his viewpoint and interests, Bush couldn’t have made a better choice although Christian conservatives may rue the day. Whereas faith is a wonderful quality, it is nothing short of gulliblity when placed in the wrong person.

 

For the simple minded, appellate courts are constrained by the rulings of the Supreme Court. Therefore, as far as appellate courts are concerned Supreme Court rulings are settled law.

 

Nothing turns out the paranoids, though, like George W. He is criticized for nominating a candidate without a record, which would ideally deflate much of the kneejerk Democrat opposition that a Bork nomination would generate, and then when that violent resistance fails to appear, then Bush is blamed for a conspiratorial attempt to hush the "easily cowed" religious right, i.e., those whose names don't begin with "Chuck" and end with "Baldwin".

Yes, I've said that the Roberts nomination bothers me because he doesn't have a record to stand on, but it is another order of worry to impute the sinister designs we've seen. I wonder if the Baldwinites have anything good to say about the President, except perhaps that his wife is nice (well, at least we can't see the horns under her hair).

I'll tell you what, folks, when Jesus or Pat Buchanan run for President, I'll let you know; then, maybe someone would be able to escape the blinded and blinding criticism you folks have for anyone holding that office.

 

Let's face it: you just hate the constitution and love big brother and global governance. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, rubbish, Pancho. I have posted before that anyone named Johnny G. Bob Junior who is also from Indiana can't be all that bad.

Your Constitution Party source is wrong about what settled law is.

The Republican Party believes that a sitting President shoud have the right to nominate judges and have them confirmed by the Senate unless there is something wrong with the person's legal status.

The Constitution Party has a never ending attack upon the GOP and it is getting tedious. This particular attack is wrong in all respects. The man is a Catholic and is pro-life. Also, his academic record is tops.

The Constitution Party is to be feared, especially when they join with Schumer. So drop the emotional stuff and drop the charges against Judge Roberts. You don't even have a seat in Congress.

 

fromtheright

You need to get some better glasses. I can barely make out the tips if I get real close to the TV and look through my bifocals.

 

OR,



Thanks for the levity. It is often good for the soul.

 

Chuck Baldwin is not the author of the original post, what Dr. Baldwin said about Roberts is the same thing that you said about Roberts:

"I remain both hopeful and disappointed in the choice of Roberts." --fromtheright

"All of us who are committed to constitutional government and to the importance of overturning Roe v Wade would like to be hopeful regarding John Roberts appointment. At this point, hope is about all we have to lean on." --Chuck Baldwin

 

And apparantly, a few conservatives are willing to do the same. Go figure.

 

And apparantly, a few conservatives are willing to do the same. Go figure. </font>[/QUOTE]As well as some democrats that won't. And that is, in the end, why most people believe he will be confirmed.

 

JG,

Thanks for the note re CB. I humbly apologize for my misstatement re Baldwin's position.

 

There are some "extremist" in the Constitution Party, just like there are in the GOP, but Chuck Baldwin is not one of those extremist! He has done more for conservativism within the GOP before joining the CP than most within the GOP, he served as chairman of the Florida Moral Majority and has had had audiences with former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush, Sr. and Governors Bob Martinez, Fob James, Jr. and Jeb Bush.

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/sketch.html

I am going to a meeting with Dr. Baldwin on August 18th, maybe I can get my picture taken with him to post on the board.

 

They have already started. I predict this confirmation battle will get as dirty as that of Bork and Thomas before it is over. The liberal/leftist operate under absolutely no constraints when it comes to politics.

 

JG,

I still think that Baldwin is an extremist but I will concede that he makes some excellent points and arguments, one of my favorite of which is the compromises made by the Bush Administration with the homosexual lobby in some of his appointments. I also felt it only right and honest to admit my own error about his position re Roberts.

 

Poncho, you are way off the radar screen on this judge--especially bringing up the Constitution Party again and again. Their lawyer in Los Angeles did not know what he was talking about but that did not stop him from throwing mud. I work around a lot of lawyers, and I certainly would not want this Los Angeles lawyer working for me--and I imagine he makes about $500 an hour. He made two errors about Johnny G. Bob Junior from the shores of Lake Michigan in Indiana: he did not know what settled law was and he did not know that Judge Johnny G. Bob Junior was a devout Catholic and therefore pro-life. Some overpriced lawyer!

But you know what, Pancho, I think that the Constitution Party will continue the attack on the Bush nominee and join with the liberals in saying that the judge is not good enough. That is what I mean when I write that the Constitution Party is to be feared because they are anti-intellectual because they will believe their lawyer and nothing else.

Personally, I would be ashamed to post something on the internet so factually wrong and not apologize but the Constitution Party will not apologize in my opinion.

Lawyers are sharks and political lawyers are some of the worst. Believe it or not, I know some Christian lawyers and they do not make irresponsible legal statements.

 

I'm afraid you're correct, carpro, about the slander and vilification. I'd sure hate to run for or be nominated for a political office in these times. I hope you're correct about the confirmation.