Ann Coulter and Justice John Roberts

Here is a link to Ann Coulter's column about John Roberts when was nominated to the Supreme Court in 2005:

http://www.wnd.com/2005/07/31390/

Here is a quote from that column:

But unfortunately, other than that, we don’t know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever.

Here are some quotes from my own blogpost from July 20, 2005:

If we end up with another Souter, Kennedy or O'Connor (or Stevens, Blackmun, Powell, Brennan, Warren, etc. - all Republican appointments) we should recognize that the fault lies with the blogosphere in the first place. We had the means to influence the nomination prior to the nominee being selected. Instead, we waited and discussed various choices as if we were betting on a horse. We should have turned our blogs into megaphones for a few selected strict constructionist candidates. We should have advocated and discussed strict constructionism the way we are discussing it today.

[Useless trivia - the last time we had a Supreme Court Justice named Roberts, things didn't turn out so well. If you don't know what I am talking about, figure it out before the next nominee is announced. I think you have at least one year to look it up.]

Obama attacks the Supreme Court; Mark Steyn; Hugh Hewitt; Justice Kennedy; Robert Mugabe

After last week's "State of the Union" speech (during which President B. Hussein Obama attacked the Supreme Court), Hugh Hewitt and Mark Steyn discussed Obama's attack in the context of today's politics and future decisions of the Court:

BHO: With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations to spend without limit in our elections.

HH: Now Mark Steyn, that is not accurate. The Austin decision is 20 years old, it had never been directly challenged. This was explained in the Chief Justice’s concurrence. But putting that aside, he attacked the Court which is non-partisan, and is supposed to represent the rule of law. It’s really unprecedented.

MS: Yes, and it’s very interesting. I would be interested to know what Nancy Pelosi thinks of that, because Nancy Pelosi’s comment, best known comment on Supreme Court decisions is that oh well, they’re sort of like God. In other words, once the Court has ruled, that’s it. It’s chiseled in tablets of stone, brought down from the mountain, and delivered in this case by Justice Kennedy. I mean, what I find so odd about this is that Justice Kennedy is the new Sandra Day O’Connor on that Court. He’s the swinger. He’s the swing vote. And I think, I don’t think it’s strictly in naked political interest, it’s sensible for Obama to actually publically sneer at Justice Kennedy when he’s sitting a few feet away from him. It just seems to me a very odd thing to do, and yet another example of how isolated and detached from the facts on the ground this Oval Office is.

Steyn's point is that Obama made a political mistake by attacking a swing voter on the Supreme Court, which attack will adversely affect future Court decisions.

What Steyn does not mention is that Obama (and the left) does not care so much about a few decisions of the Court. He cares about destroying the institution and its ability to check and balance the other branches of government. By attacking the Court publicly in this fashion, he has helped diminish the Court in the eyes of the 40% of the poll respondents that will follow Obama no matter how badly he performs in office.

Obama has promised to transform America. He means it. He has taken many steps designed to bankrupt this country. He has taken over industries. These are transformative steps. Destroying what is left of the rule of law is another such step. Diminishing the Supreme Court is necessary to the destruction of the rule of law.

Obama and the leftist utopians envision a world where the President can give any order without worrying about a pesky court getting in the way. The left can not get to that promised land without constant attacks on the Court. Obama's 40% must be mobilized against the very institutions that stand in the way of the progressive, populist dictatorship. (Whether Obama is the ultimate beneficiary of this dictatorship is irrelevant to the "progressive" masses. There will be a dictator someday - the name of the puppet that dances on the end of the strings is irrelevant.)

Did Robert Mugabe worry about the attitude of the swing voters on the Zimbabwean Supreme Court as he was seizing farms and turning the currency into confetti? Obama and his allies have a broader agenda than bean counting votes on the Supreme Court.

Quote of the day - Ann Coulter [Miguel Estrada, Sonia Sotomayor]

After aggressively blocking Estrada's nomination to a federal appeals court during Bush's first term solely on the grounds that he is Hispanic and was likely headed for the Supreme Court -- according to Senate Democrat staff memos -- now Democrats have the audacity to rave that Sotomayor will be the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice!

Ann Coulter - May 27, 2009

Flashback, 1986 Senate loss, Judiciary Committee, National Review

On December 5, 1986, National Review commented on the midterm elections, in which the Democrats retook the Senate from the Republicans:

So Senator Joseph Biden takes over as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. As a presidential aspirant, he will have to scream a lot less and appear statesmanlike. The Democratic victory means that Reagan judicial appointments will have at least marginally rougher going. Which, in turn, somewhat enhances the Supreme Court prospects of Senator Orrin Hatch, who would sail through any Senate committee. The rumor that Biden plans to reopen the Chappaquiddick case is clearly too good to be true. Of course, Teddy could always receve a presidential pardon, which would close the case forever.

This quote reveals a great deal of conservative naivite about future Democratic obstructionism, as "Bork" would not become a verb for another year.

Otherwise, it is amazing how little political analysis and the cast of characters have changed. it is hard to tell that this quote was written 20 years ago instead of today.

For more information on how the Republicans underestimated the extent of Democrat obstructionism in the Bork battle, click here.

Quote of the day - Joe Sobran

For liberals, the Constitution as written is boring old
music. They want the Court to play ingenious new
variations on it, jazzing it up with penumbras and
emanations until it sounds like a totally different work,
one they can really dig.

Joe Sobran

Quote of the day - Ann Coulter

"We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee - - that's just a joke, for you in the media."

Ann Coulter

Samuel Alito; All Quiet on the Western Front

There has been little discussion of Judge Alito in recent weeks. We should not be deceived by this period of relative calm. The left is preparing its attack at this very moment. The smear campaigns are being readied and should explode on our television screens next month (if not sooner) when the confirmations hearings begin.

We should be readying ourselves for this battle. The Box of Docs research program is one example that worked with the Roberts confirmation and should work with Alito. There is more here on the contrast between our lack of preparedness during the Bork battle and our preparation for the Roberts battle. Let's push for a repeat of the Roberts battle.

Did you think I was kidding?; Alito accused of mob ties.

Yesterday I listed some of the tactics that the MSM/DNC might use against Judge Alito, the second of which reads as follows:

Or how about a New York Times investigation into Alito's family, neighbors, etc? He sounds Italian. Maybe he has mob ties.

Little did I know that the Dems were at that moment preparing a talking points memo, the very first point of which implies that Alito let mobsters off the hook in 1988. Redstate.org nails the culprit that circulated this anonymous memo.

P.S. Don't soften on Chris Matthews just because he failed to take the bait on this one. He knows that the blogosphere would roast him alive if he joined this mob-smear.

MSM/DNC opening salvos in the war against Alito

Chuck Schumer apparently has this morning invoked the name of Rosa Parks to imply that Judge Alito seeks to impose racial segregation.

We knew that it would start sooner or later.

Within seconds of the President's announcement CNN went on the air with the following remark from page one of their well-worn playbook:

"I think what you're going to see is some disappointment that this is obviously a white male replacing a female, leaving just one female on the Supreme Court.”

NewsBusters also quotes the Today Show's practice of making "conservative" sound like Alito's first name. I am sure there is more to come.

• 
  I am still waiting for the first accusations that Alito is gay.
  
  Or how about a New York Times investigation into Alito's family, neighbors, etc? He sounds Italian. Maybe he has mob ties.
  
  What did Alito know and when-did-he-know-it about the Plame leak?
  
  Did he ever live in or near a neighborhood that used to be all-white?
  
  Did he ever own stock in a tobacco company or an oil company or Halliburton? Or any company at all?
  
  Did he fulfill his duties in the Texas Air National Guard?
  
  Let's find out what Anita Hill thinks.
  
  Did he ever have a nanny?
  
  Why didn't he stop Bush from supporting torture at Abu Graib and Guantanamo?
  
  Why didn't he get the federal government to rescue the millions of people who died at the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina?
  
  Has he no shame?!?!

As Euripides wrote, "Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad." The members of the MSM/DNC have always thought of themselves as gods (which helps explain why they cannot acknowledge the real God). But in their coverage of qualified Supreme Court nominees, we learn their strategy for destroying the rest of us.

Judge Samuel Alito

President Bush has shown that he trusts us (the new media, the conservative movement, his base, etc.) by nominating a qualified and controversial conservative to the Supreme Court. He trusts that we will fight the good fight and help carry the day. It is our turn to justify that trust.

For those of you that are bloggers, please don't forget about this battle and get distracted by other issues after today. Blog about Alito tomorrow and the next day, etc. Blog in favor of Alito every day until he is confirmed. The MSM/DNC is already working overtime to plan strategy to derail this nomination.

We have to be prepared to:

(1) explain, promote and defend Alito's writings and opinions;

(2) anticipate the obligatory leftist accusations - racist/sexist/capitalist etc.

This effort will take constant work over the next few weeks.

But it will pay off over the next 20 years.

Recovering from the quagmeir.

BizzyBlog posts the story of a President who recovered quite well after making a major speech advocating a mistaken policy.

I won't explain the mistake or reveal who the President was, but the point is that no one remembers the mistake now. By the same token, no one will remember the Miers mistake if the President recovers by appointing a qualified candidate now. If you don't believe me, read BizzyBlog.

We can do our part by assuring the President that we are up for the fight when he appoints his qualified nominee. Rather than speculate on who that nominee might be, we should focus on ways that we can promote that nominee.

I am not advocating that we blindly trust the President's next pick, but, instead, that we prove to the President now that he can trust us. We must reassure him that we can and will fight for a qualified nominee so that he need not fear that his nominee will be defeated.

Quotes of the day - Ann Coulter, Jonah Goldberg, Captain Ed

"With Miers withdrawal, Bush has us back on the team, ready to cheer for him unreservedly. All we ask is that you please not listen to Harry Reid next time."

Ann Coulter
----------------------------------------

"No Gonzales, a thousand times no Gonzales."

Jonah Goldberg
----------------------------------------

"Now can we nominate a candidate whose qualities and track record presumes we control the Senate?"

Captain Ed

We have one more chance to get it right.

Now that Harriet Miers has withdrawn her name from consideration for the Supreme Court, President Bush has another chance to appoint a qualified nominee that will interpret the constitution and has a track record that we can reasonably rely on.

But President Bush is not the only one who has received a second chance. Conservatives in the blogosphere have received a second chance also. My own opinion is that we blew it with regard to the Miers nomination when we failed to be vocal enough prior to the announcement of the nomination. Once the nomination is made, it is too late. If President Bush nominates another stealth candidate, I suspect we won't get another chance. The next nominee will not be withdrawn. Even the Miers battle cost the conservative movement something in terms of time and credibility and political "capital."

We should make it clear NOW that if President Bush puts forth a qualified, conservative nominee, we will back him 110%. The same blogswarm/blogstorm that derailed the Miers' nomination can and will carry the day for Judge Brown or Owens or any of the other qualified candidates.

One result of the Miers battle is that the administration has seen what a good blogswarm can do. [The administration should have understood this after Rathergate, but better late than never.] If we start swarming now for a qualified conservative, the administration won't make the same mistake again. A good blogswarm now will also convince the administration that the President has the troops to carry the day in the Senate.

The bloggers don't even have to agree on who is the best nominee. Numerous conservatives have their favorite candidates. We need only make it clear that all of us will fight and swarm for any of the qualified conservatives. I predict that the moderates/stealth proponents will try to appease us by saying that "we can't have a nominee that please everyone."

We don't want to please everyone. We want a nominee that will follow the law, refrain from judicial activism, strictly construe the constitution, refrain from inventing penumbras, etc. And we want the nominee to have a track record that backs up his or her promises.

I have quoted Janice Rogers Brown numerous times on these pages. We know her track record from quotes like this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.

While I favor Judge Brown, I and all of the other conservatives would support wholeheartedly a large number of potential nominees.

To the administration, I say "Let's not waste the resources of the new media this time. Let it work for you instead of against you."

To the blogosphere, I say, "Everything you are saying today, keep saying over and over until the administration gets it right. Don't wait for the nomination to be announced. Don't forget about this issue merely because we might get distracted by other issues."

Jonah Goldberg has the right idea. No Gonzales, a thousand times no Gonzales.

Michelle Malkin posts a good roundup.

Blonde Sagacity and LaShawn Barber sound a similar note.

If we all talk about this as much over the next few weeks as we have over the last few weeks, we won't see this mistake again.

P.S. Click here to read why it would be better for a true conservative like Bork to lose than for a moderate like Anthony Kennedy to be confirmed.

I oppose the Miers nomination

N.Z. Bear is collecting data on which bloggers support and oppose the Miers nomination.

He will find those who oppose the nomination by searching for the phrase, "I oppose the Miers nomination."

So far, more of us oppose the nomination than support it.

My question is, where were the bloggers before the nomination was made? The time to make our feelings known is before the nomination is announced. It doesn't work if we sit back and wait while President Bush is making up his mind. We should have started blogging about this in November - or at least as soon as Justice O'Connor announced her retirement.

I think we should still talk about this, but let's also start talking about the next nomination NOW before it is too late. Let's let the President know what a mistake a Gonzalez nomination would be.

Quote of the day - Ann Coulter

We've gone from a representative democracy to a monarchy, and the most appalling thing is — even conservatives just hope like the dickens the next king is a good one.

Ann Coulter (referring to the Supreme Court)

Laura Bush and Matt Lauer

Much of the blogosphere has reacted negatively to Laura Bush' interview with Matt Lauer this week on the Today show. Laura Bush stated that the conservative criticism of Harriet Miers was based on sexism. Typical of the response has been that of Peggy Noonan:

Sending Laura Bush out to make her first mistake as first lady, agreeing with Matt Lauer that sexism is probably part of the reason for opposition to Ms. Miers, was embarrassingly inept and only served to dim some of the power of this extraordinary resource.

I am not defending the nomination. I have made my thoughts clear here and here. Nor am I defending the use of the sexism card. But I am suggesting that the use of the sexism card was unintended by the White House. Bear with me here. The transcript of the quote appears at Big Lizards:

Lauer: Some are suggesting there's a little possible sexism in the criticism of Judge [sic] Miers.

Laura Bush: That's possible. I think --

Lauer: How would you feel about that?

Laura Bush: That's possible. I think she is so accomplished that... I know, I think that people are not looking at her accomplishments and not realizing that she was the first elected woman to be the head of the Texas Bar Association, for instance, and all the other things. She was the first, uh, woman managing partner of a major law firm. She was the first woman hired by a major law firm, her law firm.

emphasis added

I don't think Laura Bush intended to make that accusation. I think Matt Lauer threw in a suggestion and the first lady went with the flow.

Understand what Matt Lauer and the rest of the MSM/DNC anchors and reporters really are. They are not journalists as we understand that term. They are skilled propagandists. They are shills for one political party and one extreme ideology. They are the most skilled propagandists in existence. Their sole function is to promote their agenda in a way that does not lose their audience or reveal their bias.

Their role is more partisan than that of any trial lawyer. A lawyer (1) openly advocates his client's case and (2) is somewhat constrained by the law. But MSM/DNC interviewers can pretend to be objective. They have as much experience in extracting admissions from witnesses as any lawyer. They do it live in front of millions of viewers every day. That is all they do - advocate leftist ideology, hide their advocacy wioccasionalnal with occasional head fakes into pretend objectivity, provide assistance ("softballs") to friendly witnesses who share their advocacy goals, extract admissions from those who are not so cooperative. Only those who can accomplish these tasks under the microscope of the television camera are clever and fit enough to ascend to the position of Today show host.

By contrast, George Bush (by virtue of our ever expanding federal government) is concerned with items such as policy, fundraising, the economy, education and every other area that affects our lives. He is not single-mindedly devoted to propaganda.

Laura Bush is a mother, teacher, librarian and first lady (in no particular order).
She has never devoted her life to propaganda.

Laura Bush is no match for Matt Lauer. If Matt Lauer wants Laura Bush to say that Miers' opponents are sexist, she will say that they are sexist. If Matt Lauer wants to turn Laura Bush against her husband's base, she will be helpless to resist. Matt Lauer will hijack Laura Bush' mouth and use it as a weapon against conservatives just like the terrorists used American planes to destroy lower Manhattan.

This analysis does not excuse Laura Bush or the White House. When the White House sends a Laura Bush into the den of an MSM/DNC lion, this result is inevitable. It is the inevitable result of George Bush seeking help from the MSM/DNC in a fight against his own base.

When you get in bed with a dog, you wake up with fleas. We now have to wash off the fleas, fumigate the bed and rid ourselves of MSM/DNC tactics. I think it is time for George Bush to stop fighting his own supporters stop seeking help from the MSM/DNC and take Peggy Noonan's (and others') advice.

The MSM/DNC hates George Bush no less than they did several weeks ago. George Bush will need his supporters more now than ever. I ask George Bush to withdraw this nomination and unify his supporters once more.

Harriet Miers - The Bork/Kennedy scenario

Earlier I wrote that blame should properly be attributed to certain Republican moderates in the Senate for the fiasco that the Miers' nomination has become.

I also proposed that conservative senators vote "no" so that Democrats will be forced either to support her or face a real constitutionalist nominee to replace Miers.

Some conservatives have suggested that because Bush was backed into the corner by McCain/Graham et al., we should not oppose this nomination and we should recognize that it was Bush' best option. In fact, the opposite is true. As I wrote yesterday:

Had Bush nominated a well known, qualified judge, the blame would have been placed squarely where it belongs - On McCain and on the leftists that control the Democratic Party. But because Bush has chosen a stealth nominee, he has shifted the blame onto himself. He has protected those who would stab him in the back. Bush takes the blame instead of those who undermine the conservative fight to reestablish limited government.

I think Bush' best course would have been to nominate a known conservative. Had the nomination failed, he then could have resorted to a stealth nominee. If you are not sure about this idea, think back to 1987. Would Reagan have been better off nominating Anthony Kennedy first without ever nominating Bork?

I believe that conservatives benefited from the Bork nomination. [The best scenario would have been for Bork to have been confirmed - but that didn't happen.] Given a choice between a failed Bork nomination and no Bork nomination, the failed Bork nomination worked better.

(1) The Democrats' behavior during the Bork Senate hearings revealed the Democrats to be who they really are - partisan hacks. See the comments in Thomas Sowell's biography.

(2) The Bork confirmation process exposed Arlen Specter as the leftist he really is. The resulting Republican mistrust forced him into a primary battle during the next election that he could head off only by championing the cause of Clarence Thomas in 1991.

(3) Conservatives are much more prepared today for a confirmation battle than we were in 1987. Had Reagan failed to nominate Bork and gone directly to a moderate, he would have only postponed the inevitable leftist ambush. Leftists were waiting to ambush a conservative nominee. The Bork episode provided a learning experience and prepared us for the Clarence Thomas episode and for the confirmation of all of the conservative appeals court judges that President Bush has now overlooked in favor of Miers. The conservative preparation for the Roberts' confirmation hearings was much more thorough than the preparation for the Bork hearings. We have learned that confirmation depends not so much on the candidate and his testimony, but on the ideological battle that we must wage in the media.

(4) Perhaps most importantly, the leftist attacks on Bork galvanized the conservative movement. "Bork" became a verb in addition to a noun. There is a name for what the Democrats do. We can identify it, talk about it and prepare for it. We can campaign against them for using those tactics. We have a martyr. Judge Bork is more widely read now than he ever was before. He has written numerous books since 1987. He appears regularly on radio and TV. He is a highly sought after lecturer. I have no doubt that if Robert Bork were still young enough to be nominated, he would be confirmed today. Conservatives have learned a great deal about the constitution and what the left has done to it as a result of the post-1987 activities of Judge Bork. We now use that knowledge in political debate.



The lesson of the Bork episode is that we should not hide from ideological battles over the Supreme Court. Even if we lose, we win.

We lost the Bork battle in 1987, but conservatism was the ultimate winner. That victory has taken almost two decades of education, argument, debate, campaigning, etc. There is no reason to squander the fruits of that victory by nominating a stealth candidate now. Confirmation battles, even losing battles, are not to be feared.

Let the Democrats make a martyr out of Janice Rogers Brown. Nominate Brown now, and she will emerge either as a martyr or a Supreme Court justice. If Brown emerges as a martyr, we can always go back to Miers or some other stealth candidate.

---------------------------------

Update - Michelle Malkin posts a weekend Miers roundup.
---------------------------
Peace Like a River nails it also.
-------------------------
Another update
David Limbaugh explains that this fight is not about elitism, but about the "struggle to remain free."
------------------------
And another

Michelle Malkin and Polipundit provide a roundup of bad news for the Miers nomination.

Harriet Miers - who is to blame?

Previous - An idea . . .

A number of commentators have weighed in with their thoughts on who really is to blame for the Harriet Miers debacle. Thomas Sowell rightly points the finger at the moderates in the Republican party in the Senate:

President Bush has taken on too many tough fights -- Social Security being a classic example -- to be regarded as a man who is personally weak. What is weak is the Republican majority in the Senate.

When it comes to taking on a tough fight with the Senate Democrats over judicial nominations, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist doesn't really have a majority to lead. Before the President nominated anybody, before he even took the oath of office for his second term, Senator Arlen Specter was already warning him not to nominate anyone who would rile up the Senate. Later, Senator John Warner issued a similar warning. It sounded like a familiar Republican strategy of pre-emptive surrender.

Before we can judge how the President played his hand, we have to consider what kind of hand he had to play. It was a weak hand -- and the weakness was in the Republican Senators.

Mark Levin reminds us of John McCain's disastrous deal earlier this year with the Democrats -

But McCain — who wants to be president and has now endorsed Harriet Miers — and his cadre must not escape scrutiny for their blunder.

McCain's backstabbing does not excuse President Bush. Had Bush nominated a well known, qualified judge, the blame would have been placed squarely where it belongs - On McCain and on the leftists that control the Democratic Party. But because Bush has chosen a stealth nominee, he has shifted the blame onto himself. He has protected those who would stab him in the back. Bush takes the blame instead of those who undermine the conservative fight to reestablish limited government.

- More on McCain here (peripherally related).

- Wizbang Carnival of Trackbacks.

- Captain's analysis of WaPo coverage.

Quote of the day - Peggy Noonan

And you become used to the idea that unlike everyone else in the country, you have job security. A lifetime appointment. When people have complete professional security they are more likely in time to show a new conceit. I don't know why this is, but I think it's connected to the fact that they're lucky, and it seems somehow hardwired in human nature that when people are lucky they come to think they deserve it: It's not luck, it's virtue. And since it's virtue my decisions are by their nature virtuous. I think I'll decree that local government, if it judges it necessary, can throw grandma out of the house and turn her tired little neighborhood into a box store that will yield higher tax revenues. Thus Kelo v. New London is born. I decree it.

Peggy Noonan

[current link here. Permalink does not yet exist.]

An idea for the Miers nomination

Previous Miers post here - White House running scared.

I have an idea as to how conservatives should handle the Harriet Miers nomination. What do you suppose would happen if a fair number of Republicans refused to support the nomination in the Senate?

I believe that if Republican support were less than unanimous, a large number of Democrats would cross the aisle and vote for her. (A fair number voted for Roberts, but only because Democrats were going to lose anyway.) If Miers lost 30 or more Republican senators, I think the Democratic groundswell in Miers' favor would be very large. The Democrats will not let this one get away. Bush has goofed, the Democrats know it and the Dems are going to make sure Miers gets on the Court. This nomination is the 2005 equivalent of Bush I' tax increase from 1990. The Democrats needed that tax increase to put Bill Clinton in the White House in 1992. The Democrats need the Harriet Miers debacle to put Hillary (or some other leftist) in the White House in 2008.

A Republican exodus would force the Democrats to show their hand now and make it obvious that the Democrats favor stealth candidates and fear ideological debate.

I know it is not much of a strategy, but it is better than having Miers confirmed by Republicans while the Democrats pretend to oppose Miers with their usual cries of "homophobe, racist, Halliburton, warmonger, anti-choice. . . . "

The other benefit is that Republican senators might retain their own bases even as George Bush loses his base. We might hang on the Senate in 2006 if the Republican Senators avoid taking the blame for Harriet Miers.