Home > Perspective

OK, Ann is Upset!

by John F. Tamburo, Editor in Chief, Publisher
Originally Posted: 7/20/2005 10:56:54 AM
Last Updated: 7/20/2005 11:04:31 AM

Ann Coulter has weighed in on the John Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court.  And she is not happy.  She sees Judge Roberts as the second coming of David Souter.  To quote the Queen of Conservative Hotness:  "So all we know about him for sure is that he can’t dance and he probably doesn’t know who Jay-Z is. Other than that, he is a blank slate. Tabula rasa. Big zippo. Nada."  I think Ann Coulter is the best pundit in the business.  I love her writing style and her rapier wit.  I made her the inaugural nominee of our Conservative Hall of Fame.  Is she wrong?  To quote a Supreme Court justice, "there is no such thing as a false opinion."

"Ann is entitled to her own opinion.  She set that opinion forth forcefully, as per usual.  She explained her reasoning carefully, as per usual.  And she certainly did not abandon her wonderful writing style."

Ann is entitled to her own opinion.  She set that opinion forth forcefully, as per usual.  She explained her reasoning carefully, as per usual.  And she certainly did not abandon her wonderful writing style.  Now, I am going to disagree with the vivacious Ms. Coulter.  I do so with the kind of respect that a newbie like me owes to a consummate luminary like her.

Ann has stated that Judge Roberts disclaimed the positions he advocated when he was assistant Solicitor General of the United States, including the position where he argued that Roe v. Wade was "wrongly decided."  Ann includes the actual language of this disclaimer, contained in a 1994 law review article.  The disclaimer states that his arguments "do not necessarily reflect" his personal views.  That’s cool by me.  It’s not a complete disclaimer.  And yes, I know that I am parsing the disclaimer.

Moreover, there is something else here.  We need someone who will interpret the Constitution literally and strictly, not someone who will impose a conservative or liberal viewpoint on it.  A tough-on-crime conservative may be inclined to want to control weapons in order to enforce law and order.  A strict constructionist will set aside his or her views and vote the Constitution, and end gun control.

"It’s true that NARAL and Planned Parenthood vehemently oppose Judge Roberts.  It’s also true, as Ann duly noted, that NARAL and Planned Parenthood will, as a knee-jerk reaction, oppose any nominee put forth by a GOP president."

It’s true that NARAL and Planned Parenthood vehemently oppose Judge Roberts.  It’s also true, as Ann duly noted, that NARAL and Planned Parenthood will, as a knee-jerk reaction, oppose any nominee put forth by a GOP president.  Their agenda is to preserve, promote and increase the atrocity of abortion.  NARAL and Planned Parenthood opposed Justice Souter when he was nominated, yet now he is part of the activist bloc that is moving this country to the left, against its every wish.  However, Justice Souter is not on record as arguing for the repeal of Roe v. Wade before the Supreme Court.  Judge Roberts is, and the disclaimer is not what it is cooked up to be.

Again, I belabor:  We want someone who will interpret the Constitution strictly and literally.  I don’t care if, personally, he or she is an extreme leftist if he or she has the discipline to strictly construct the Constitution.  If such a person existed (I doubt it; liberalism and self discipline are diametric), personal views would take a back seat and the justice would vote with Justices Scalia and Thomas virtually every time.

"Ann is correct in noting that past nominees (Warren, Blackmun, Stevens, Kennedy, Souter) have backfired horribly on the GOP.  My dispute is based on my belief that Judge Roberts is not a stealth nominee."

That’s the gist of my disagreement with Ann.  We don’t know Judge Roberts’ personal views, granted.  Ann is correct in noting that past nominees (Warren, Blackmun, Stevens, Kennedy, Souter) have backfired horribly on the GOP.  My dispute is based on my belief that Judge Roberts is not a stealth nominee.  He is, in my opinion, and I hope and pray that I’m right, a justice in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, and will move the court substantially in the right direction.

Ann, you’re upset.  You and I both love a good fight, and personally, I would have liked to see Janice Rogers Brown or Ann’s preferred Shapiro get the nod.  But John Roberts is just fine by me.  Our President has been an outstanding judge of character.  Your objections to Judge Roberts go to character, but our President has sat with and talked to the man.  I don’t think that he’s like his dad in this area.  This pick has all of the feeling of our President’s choosing a solid conservative, and someone who he trusts, to fill an important role.  I don’t think that need to worry about Judge Roberts.