Lazarus v. Coulter

After reading this article, I'm tempted to give Ann Coulter's objection to Judge Roberts a bit more credence.

Money graphs:

Why could Roberts be influential? Because of the very collegiality that is cited as a reason to confirm him.

Justice Thomas, for instance, is isolated on the Court by his extreme and often unusual views; like Bork, he too is susceptible to caricature due to a strong emphasis on Framers' intent. So while Thomas is a reliable conservative vote, he is not an effective wooer of moderates. But Roberts could both be a reliable conservative vote, and also convince moderates such as Justice Kennedy to join his side. Similarly, while Thomas is too extreme to ever be a Chief Justice candidate, Roberts, in contrast, could easily become one. [emphasis added]

Uh, I don't want to be a prick about this, but "a strong emphasis on Framers' intent" is what a Supreme Court Justice is supposed to have. That's not "extreme," it's mainstream, and more to the point, constitutionalist. If Judge Roberts doesn't share Justice Thomas' "extreme, unusual views," how could he be a similarly "reliable, conservative vote"?

Maybe that graph was poorly worded, but this observation seems crystal clear:

Putting politics aside, the current Court member Roberts most resembles is Stephen Breyer. Roberts is far more intellectual than Rehnquist, far more politic than Scalia, and - as noted above - far less extreme than Thomas. [emphasis added]

On second thought, maybe there is some opacity present. Such as why Mr. Lazarus reiterates his slur of Justice Thomas as "extreme," but merely slaps his philosophical soul mate, Justice Scalia, as "impolitic." I don't want to reflexively impute racist motives to the author, but this strikes me as being an odd juxtaposition.

However, again, if Judge Roberts is "far less extreme" than Justice Thomas - and by implication, Justice Scalia - by which is meant a loose, if any, commitment to original intent...well, it becomes easier to see how the author could draw a parallel with one of the High Court's most liberal (i.e. faithless to the Constitution he was sworn to uphold) members.

The above is, of course, one man's opinion, and mine is still that, based upon the paper trail does exist, Judge Roberts would be the jurisprudential son of Rehnquist. But with the stealth, fundamentally timid stance from which the Bush White House is approaching this nomination, I can't really blame diehard skeptics like the Blonde Bomber for having Souter flashbacks.

The concern I would have is for the next nomination. Is this "anti-Bork" strategy tailored to this particular appointment, given that it is an opportunity to push the SCOTUS to the right, in which case we could expect the Chief Justice's replacement to be a more "Borkian" candidate like a Luttig, McConnell, Wilkinson, or Edith Jones? Or is it going to be standard operating procedure, in which case we'll never know for sure what we're getting despite Republican control of both Houses of Congress and the Executive?

If it's the former, I won't sweat it. If it's the latter...well, I won't be surprised.

[HT: Bench Memos]