The Morning After

Only discouraging words I've come across this AM from the Right on the selection of Judge John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court have been from the Weekly Standard poobahs.

Fred Barnes lamented that, "Conservatives hoped for a demonstrably conservative nominee with a streak of daring. They didn't get one."

The Roberts nomination didn't prompt conservatives to jump for joy, though he was widely praised. Cornyn called him a "solid pick." Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma offered no praise at all. He said the Senate must examine Roberts' "loyalty to the Constitution and its strict construction." Sounding a bit like Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, who is sure to spearhead the opposition to Roberts, Coburn said senators have the right to ask "any appropriate question."

Social conservatives were hoping for more. No doubt they'll line up in support of Roberts when Democrats like Schumer and groups such as People for the [Soviet Socialist] Way begin to attack him. But they dream of the day when there are five votes on the court to reverse the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion. Now there are only three. Is Roberts likely to join a anti-Roe bloc on the court? Probably not.

In the next editoral slot, Bill "It's Gonzales, It isn't Gonzales, It is Gonzales, It's a woman" Kristol indulged in a little self-deprecation at his lapse of identity politics myopia and blessed Judge Roberts with the faint criticism of being "a Rehnquist, not a Scalia or a Thomas." Which isn't all that surprising, since Roberts used to clerk for the Chief Justice, and some believe that Rehnquist decided to put off his retirement to help make the White House's nomination job easier in exchange for the President selecting his protege.

Apart from WS-dom - well, and Ann Coulter, who thinks Roberts is another David Souter - the realm of the white hat thinks he's golden.

UPDATE, 7/20 PM: There are a couple other doubters - Kevin Patrick and Polipundit - but the whole looks like a small minority. For my part, I'm persuaded that the Rehnquist parallel fits better than the Souter.

Beldar elaborates:

Through documents and through first-hand opinions of solid and reliable conservatives who've worked closely with John G. Roberts — in his capacity as a private counselor, and not just a public advocate — Dubya does have full access to what Judge Roberts has thought and said when he's been at his most candid, under pressure and entirely outside the public spotlight. [emphasis added]

Hugh Hewitt pointed out on his radio show tonight, entirely correctly, that when John Roberts was a lawyer for the Reagan Administration, that Administration was under legal siege: times were tough, stakes were high, and wise, private legal judgments were desperately needed. Seeing from a client's viewpoint how a lawyer functions as a counselor — how he privately answers key questions like "Is this wise? Is this principled? What are the downsides? What do we really think, public façade aside?" — is extremely revealing. Quite arguably, this sort of information can tell one even more about how a nominee will perform in the future than what he's written — always for publication and usually after compromise with others on the bench — as a judge on a lower appellate court.

Thus, through people like former Solicitor General Ken Starr (and, perhaps, Chief Justice Rehnquist?) with whom John Roberts has worked very closely, and through privileged documents that Judge Roberts must have written himself while a government lawyer, Dubya and his staff certainly know vastly more about Judge Roberts' character and core beliefs than, for example, Poppy Bush ever could have known about David Souter or than the Gipper ever could have known about Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy. Instead, Dubya and his staff have the same kind of first-hand, pertinent, and highly reliable knowledge about John Roberts that Richard Nixon and his staff had about William Rehnquist. And that worked out pretty well over time, didn't it?

[HT: B4B]

~ ~ ~

The President's remarks prior to introducing Judge Roberts were, as usual, civil, classy, and nauseatingly and gushingly overgracious to the DisLoyal Opposition. Which, at moments of triumphant satisfaction like this one, makes it so much fun to read between the lines to see the thoughts behind them that a president can't publicly express.

My decision to nominate Judge Roberts to the Supreme Court came after a thorough and deliberative process. My staff and I consulted with more than 70 members of the United States Senate. I received good advice from both Republicans and Democrats. I appreciate the care they took. I'm grateful for their advice.

And I picked who I was going to pick anyway. Hot damn, it's fun to jerk those jerks around!

Under the Constitution, Judge Roberts now goes before the United States Senate for confirmation. I've recently spoken with leaders Senator Frist and Senator Reid, and with senior members of the Judiciary Committee, Chairman Specter and Senator Leahy. These senators share my goal of a dignified confirmation process that is conducted with fairness and civility. The appointments of the two most recent Justices to the Supreme Court prove that this confirmation can be done in a timely manner.

They even think of trying to "Bork" or "Estrada" my nominee and I'll see to it that each one of them gets their intestinal tract cleaned out with a commemorative Crawford Ranch, presidential-seal-embossed cattle prod.

So I have full confidence that the Senate will rise to the occasion and act promptly on this nomination. It is important that the newest Justice be on the bench when the Supreme Court reconvenes in October. I believe that Democrats and Republicans alike will see the strong qualifications of this fine judge as they did when they confirmed him by unanimous consent to the judicial seat he now holds.

They know I ain't kidding about the cattle prods, since the branding irons will come next.

I look forward to the Senate voting to confirm Judge John Roberts as the 109th Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

So say we all.

~ ~ ~

The American Spectator's "prowler" has a delightful account of the embarrassing ease with which the President played - okay, pretty much all of us like a ten-cent flute, but particularly his (political) enemies.

By weaving in and out between Edith Brown Clement and Edith Holland Jones and Michael Luttig to finally unveil John Roberts, Dubya had the poor, sadsack lib jackals chasing their own tales until they puked, and more importantly, exposing for all to see that it didn't matter if the President was appointing Lenin's corpse animated by Danny Phantom, the Left was going to reflexively attack because to them the nominee matters far less than the nominator.

"We've boxed the MoveOn types and the Ralph Neas types with today," says a Senate Judiciary Republican staffer. "They have no standing. They'd attack anyone, regardless of credentials."

Moreover, by picking Roberts, Bush sent - or, rather, reiterated - a message to one and all:

"This choice sends the message that this President has the desire to not get boxed in by his enemies," says a White House source. "He could have taken the easy way out, or comparatively easy way out, and nominated a perfectly acceptable woman like Clement, or even Jones. But he didn't. He replaced a woman justice with a man, and real conservative one at that. If that doesn't send a message to Republicans about where this President's head is at, I don't know what will....

"Another point," says a senior Senate staffer, "is that despite all the talk of compromise and consultation, the Roberts pick was not something Democrats would have supported wholeheartedly under any condition. This is a nominee who is disliked by Senators Schumer, Leahy and Kennedy. This is a shot across the extremist left bow, and it shows that the President is perhaps willing to sacrifice on the legislative agenda front for the big, long-term gains a Roberts on the court represents."

Of course, the Prowler isn't infallible. For one thing, they're reporting that the Dems will go quietly on Roberts:

That said, the Roberts nomination is expected to generate some heat, at least in the short term, though according to Democratic strategists who have briefed Senate Democratic leaders, Minority Leader Harry Reid is expected to not put up a full frontal attack against Roberts.

"We are expecting one, if not two, more nominees to the Supreme Court this calendar year," says a senior Democratic strategist. "We have to be true to our values and defend them against a nomination like Roberts, but we have to be realistic. He's going to get through. But we have bigger fights ahead that will be even more pivotal. We've advised folks to keep their powder dry and not to waste it on this fight. Wait for the biggies to come."

I could buy that shinola if Judge Roberts were replacing Rehnquist, as that would be a status quo pick that really wouldn't be worth the effort to block. But given that he's a constitutionalist replacing a "swing" vote on the High Court, that constitutes lost ground where the Left can least afford to lose it, and I just can't imagine the extremist bankrollers of the Democrat Party not cracking the whips and forcing Dirty Harry and and his "dogs of war" to go after Roberts with all guns blazing. They just have too much at stake not to.

And no, I'm not going to skip over the rest of that "White House source's" comment:

It makes those buffoons who spent all their time harping on [Attorney General Alberto] Gonzales look like petty whiners. Now these folks are going to try to take credit for the Roberts nomination, but they have nothing to stand on. Credit for this nomination belongs to the President, Karl Rove, Senator Bill Frist and the White House and Senate leadership staff who did the heavy lifting."

Speaking as one of those "buffoons," I agree wholeheartedly that credit for the Roberts nomination belongs to Mr. Bush and his advisors, although including Fristy on that list seems a bit of a stretch. But there were, and remain, perfectly reasonable and valid objections to a Gonzales SCOTUS nomination, and the chances of such a misguided, crony-ist pick go up in the next go-round because of the selection the President made this time. Or, put another way, GDub could reason that he's discharged his campaign promise to appoint a constitutionalist to Olympus, and next time he'll be free to pack it with his unreliable, recusal-baggaged buddy - an aspiration Bush has long held and of which he has made no secret.

We're not whining, in other words - and we'll be watching.

~ ~ ~

As I alluded to last night, left-wing attack boilerplate so cliched that, as happened late yesterday, the name "Roberts" was literally plugged in in place of the name "Clement" just doesn't interest me. But you can't not be entertained by Dr. Demented's leavening of it with his trademark high-octane conspiracism.

Faced with a growing scandal surrounding the involvement of Deputy White House chief of Staff Karl Rove and Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis Libby in leaking the identity of a covert CIA operative, President Bush announced his nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court late this evening."

In your dreams, Howie.

It is disappointing that when President Bush had the chance to bring the country together, he instead turned to a nominee who may have impressive legal credentials, but also has sharp partisan credentials that cannot be ignored.

"It is disappointing that President Bush didn't surrender his presidency to us and appointed a Republican constitutionalist instead."

Democrats take very seriously the responsibility to protect the individual rights of all Americans and are committed to ensuring that ideological judicial activists are not appointed to the Supreme Court.

"Democrats take very seriously the responsibility of the SCOTUS to override the wishes of the American people expressed through their elected representatives and are committed to ensuring that ideological judicial activists remain in control of the Supreme Court."

The Senate Judiciary Committee will now have the opportunity to see if Judge Roberts can put his partisanship aside, and live up to a Supreme Court Justice's duty to uphold the rights and freedoms of every American and the promise of equal justice for all.

"If he won't grow, he's gotta go."

~ ~ ~

Cap'n Ed points to the biggest opposition anti-Roberts hook - and it isn't abortion:

The ammunition for the Democrats will prove too seductive to refrain from firing, and the largest battle will actually return them to a favorite accusation against the Bush Administration: their conduct of the war on terror. Last week, Roberts joined in a unanimous decision to affirm the jurisdiction of military tribunals in processing terrorists detained overseas, a decision that has a solid basis in law but which horrified those who want to return counterterrorism to the realm of law enforcement. Roberts did not write the opinion for Hamdan v Rumsfeld, but joined in its conclusions.

Some Bushophobes are even claiming that the President rewarded Judge Roberts with this promotion for his concurrence with the First Circuit's decision.

And then there's Senator Leahy's "life preserver":

[Justice O'Connor] resigned "effective upon the nomination and confirmation of my successor." In other words, her resignation from the bench becomes effective the moment the Senate confirms her replacement.

Never mind the Gitmo horse-corpse-whipping - here is their ultimate hook. Literally hold Justice O'Connor hostage by stalling the Roberts nomination indefinitely.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

As Opus once said, "Another day, another segue."