Roberts is No Liberal

There are a lot of good reasons not to go full-out against a Roberts nomination.  The hope that he's a "liberal" isn't one of them.

That's why I was shocked to read Kos's latest post this morning.  He thinks Roberts will be a "Souter-type on the Supreme Court"?  What was he smoking?

Others showed Roberts even more love.  Apparently some think that Roberts' confirmation would be a "tremendous victory for the left" while others are convinced he is a "liberal."

(more in extended entry)

Roberts may be many things, but he's no liberal.  He's as conservative as they come.  How am I so sure?  I don't know Roberts personally.  But my conservative law school classmates and acquaintances are thrilled with Roberts.  Former clerks for Thomas and Scalia think he's a great appointment.  Some of my most conservative friends--the ones who have positions in the Federalist Society and liken abortion to the Holocaust--were hoping Bush would appoint him.

Why are they so happy?  Because Roberts is a very known quantity to them.  He's been part of the D.C. legal elite for decades, so the right-wing legal network doesn't have to worry about some unknown.  Plus Roberts doesn't have a paper trial--purposely--so they're confident he can be confirmed.  When I asked one of my friends about Coulter's column suggesting Roberts was an unknown, he laughed.

I think the right is going to laugh all the way to the bank if Roberts is confirmed.  Trust me, my pals wouldn't be happy unless Roberts was the fourth vote against Roe.  There are some reasons not to go all-out against Roberts--we may never get anyone better from Bush, for instance--but he's no liberal, that's for sure.

I'm sure I'm not the only Kossack with friends who are part of the right-wing legal elite.  Anyone else out there have stories and conversations to share?  Let's put this "Roberts is the next Souter" meme to rest right now.

•  I can't see a single reason not to pursue

  the truth about Roberts vigorously.  I haven't talked to any of my insider friends since the nomination because I haven;t been able to develop the Zen the temperment yet to discuss it without getting angry on this one.  It will come soon, but for now I am quiet.

  However, I don't need to ask really.  I know how this town works and I know enough about the present GOP elite here to be certain that Roberts is as extreme as anyone Bush could appoint.  That fact alone says to me that we should fight this one.  Bush has a zone that he is choosing from and he is not going to back off of that zone UNLESS we show America what that zone really is like.

  Waiting until the NEXT SCOTUS appointment only puts us behind the eight ball again.  Leaving all the ground work that could be done now to the very last minute.  We will appear disingenous as a result of having not acted on the first when we are fighting the second.  Then we really will appear to be unreasonable screaming idiots.  

  People will say in the next round - and let's not kid ourselves the GOP will be first to say, "But you nominated Roberts without a fight - he is ultra neoCon right wing.  What's so wrong with nominee X?"  Again the Democrats will be caught in their web of screwy reasoning and the American public will have a sense of mis-trust about us and get behind the GOP.  We are fools if we don't go after this one.

  by inclusiveheart on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 08:37:26 AM PDT

•  The D.C. legal elite

  One reason why the Democrats have been so muted in their reaction to Roberts is that he has spent so much time inside the Beltway. Blood is still thicker than water, despite five years of Bushie radicalism.

  Prediction: Roberts will attract fewer "no" votes in the Senate than Gonzalez. Possible fewer than Condi Rice, too.

  by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 08:43:55 AM PDT

  •  Thicker than either blood or water

    are the single-malts the panjandrums of both parties share with each other inside the Beltway.
    

    by corvo on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 09:08:26 AM PDT

•  Oi

  I don't think the question is so much whether he is a liberal, but whether he will become a liberal.  It's the 'Scrooge' phenomena when someone wakes up and realizes they've been stealing candy from babies all their lives or helping multi-meganational corporations bulldoze the houses of elderly people and don't want to grow old with that on their conscience.

  by scionkirk on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 08:44:08 AM PDT

  •  Umm, yeah, right. n/t

    by corvo on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 09:07:09 AM PDT

  •  It's also the fact

    that once you get to the SCOTUS, that's it. It's a lifetime gig.

    by jj32 on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 01:10:49 PM PDT

•  Why would Bush

  nominate a liberal?

  Hello, McFly?

  by Jonathan4Dean on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 09:01:31 AM PDT

•  Souter isn't a liberal either

  He just didn't turn out to be the winger that the Bush I WH had banked on him being. From Oyez:

  A man of unusual and peculiar sensibilities, David H. Souter came to the Supreme Court as a complete enigma. Souter, who received his nomination to the Court from President George Bush only months after his promotion to a federal appeals court, lacked a public reputation. As a result, the press labeled him the "stealth justice," an unknown judge with uncertain values. Conservatives praised Souter as a restrained jurist and predicted that he would bolster the right-wing bloc of Antonin Scalia and William H. Rehnquist. The Bush White House assured the Republican far right that Souter would be a "home run." Liberals, on the other hand, hoped secretly that the Bush nominee would fail in expectations and emerge as a surprise to his sponsors. To this day, Souter has avoided validating either camp. The Free Congress Foundation, an organization dedicated to coordinating support for conservative nominees, has called their optimistic predictions "miserably inaccurate." The Women's Legal Defense Fund, a liberal group for the advancement of women's rights, staged protests at various times against Souter and has expressed dismay at his votes. The unhappiness of both political extremes speaks volumes of the quirky justice. To this day, Souter has demonstrated a moderate jurisprudence though he has not appeared afraid to wander deep into either camp along the political spectrum. Court watchers continue to be amused by Souter's eccentric habits and behaviors.

  Sounds familiar? Good. Now, here's the point: The Bush II WH has been banking on Roberts being a winger the way Bush popy thought Souter would be one. In both cases, there was a bit of unfounded optimism involved, since neither justice had a clear record to judge him by (no pun intended). And in Roberts' case, the WH did even less thorough background checks, since they absolutely rushed the nomination to get Rove out of the news (didn't work, of course). And if - if if if - Roberts should turn out to be another Souter, that would mean Roe is safe for decades and the religious right will absolutely crucify the chimperor. And all that without either Roberts or Souter being a librul.

  by brainwave on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 09:18:04 AM PDT

  •  Wishful thinking

    And in Roberts' case, the WH did even less thorough background checks...

    The background checks happened long ago -- after all, GWB appointed him to the District Court. The administration has been promoting him with conservative groups for a full year, according to yesterday's NYT.

    The right wing has had 15 years to figure out a process that will "avoid another Souter."

    by Elwood Dowd on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 09:39:15 AM PDT

    •  Are you paying attention?

      I didn't say Roberts is another Souter, I said he could be one. Can you prove that he isn't? If so, bring forth your evidence. And my point was, the diarist's reasoning is invalid. The diarist's argument was, paraphrasing, Roberts can't be another Souter because Roberts isn't a liberal. To which I replied, Sauter isn't a liberal either, so that can't be the point. Both Sauter and Roberts are conservatives. But Sauter has proved to be a conservative who puts the Constitution over ideology, and Lawrence tribe, one of the most respected Constitutional jurists in the nation and a card-carrying liberal, says the same is true of Roberts. And there is not a single piece of evidence that he's wrong. Is is unlikely that Roberts is another Sauter? Of course it is. Is it impossible? Are you saying the right wing is incapable of making the same mistake twice? Then you definitely have a higher opinion of them than I do.

      by brainwave on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 09:55:13 AM PDT

      •  Roberts is Miguel Estrada, not David Souter

        Can he "prove" that Roberts "could not become a Souter"?  Geez.  Obviously it's hard to prove a negative, especially one that's far in the future.  You're saying that it's possible that Roberts could have a change of heart down the road.  Well so could Dick Cheney.  I don't have a "single piece of evidence" that Cheney couldn't become a liberal in ten years, aside from my knowledge that he's a right-winger now.

        Roberts is definitely a right-wing conservative now.  He's no Souter.  Souter was an unknown to the conservative legal elite.  Heck, he was an unknown to everyone in Washington.  Souter was out of left field.

        Roberts is not an unknown.  He's extremely known, about as known as you can get within the D.C. legal elite.  And I'm telling you that my right-wing law school classmates and friends that know him and know of him are thrilled with his appointment.

        I think the best comparison to Roberts is Miguel Estrada.  My conservative friends have also told me a lot about him.  Estrada headed up the "screening process" that conservatives set up for Justice Kennedy to "prevent another Casey (the decision upholding Roe."  Basically he screened potential clerks to make sure they were conservative enough to keep Kennedy in line.

        To anyone in conservative legal circles, Estrada was a very known quantity.  He was a reliable conservative.  But to folks on the outside, he was a blank slate.  No paper trail, no crazy comments.

        Roberts is like Estrada.  He's a known quantity to the right-wing and will be a conservative vote on the Court.  You don't know much about him, but the conservative legal elite does.

        by Philosopher on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 11:08:28 AM PDT

        •  No, I'm not

          saying that Roberts could have a change of heart. Souter didn't either. They picked the wrong guy. They might have picked the wrong guy again.

          by brainwave on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 11:33:33 AM PDT

      •  "Same mistake twice"

        The right wing believes that it made the mistake of appointing a supposed conservative who then shifts to the left many, many times: Earl Warren, Harry Blackmun, Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, and Souter. I believe they have put in place a very thorough vetting process to avoid a repeat.

        Tribe also says, he finds the fact that the corporate right and religious right are ecstatic over Roberts both puzzling and troubling.

        by Elwood Dowd on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 11:29:17 AM PDT

        •  Look

          As long as it's your word against Lawrence Tribe's - well, no offense, but...

          by brainwave on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 11:34:23 AM PDT

          •  Then I'll decide against Tribe.

            Sorry, but cozy country-club friendships and the mentality that issues from them tend to cloud one's perception of what's really important to real people.

            That, and a lot of those niggling issues just don't seem all that important when you have a couple mill in the bank.

            by corvo on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 01:35:18 PM PDT

            •  Huh?

              Cozy country-club friendships? WTF are you talking about? Roberts was Tribe's effing student, fa' Pete's sake!

              by brainwave on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 01:41:12 PM PDT

              •  Even worse.

                "He wrote nice papers, he argues well, and he was so nice to me . . . thumbs up!"

                by corvo on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 02:23:20 PM PDT

•  Thank You Philosopher

  Philosopher, I wholeheartedly agree.  Some of those linked comments concerning Roberts are just...well, ignorant.

  Anyone who went to Harvard Law, clerked for Rehnquist, argued cases before the Supreme Court on behalf of the Reagan Administration, was chosen partner at a white shoe law firm, and supported Bush's position on classifying and detaining 'enemy combatants' as a judge is definitely a card-carrying, rock solid conservative.  Laurence Tribe's opinion of Roberts isn't worth crap.  He's part of the legal establishment.  Having a conservative former student and alleged friend on the Supreme Court just burnishes Tribe's reputation and gets him higher speaking fees.  

  Furthermore, it's not as if Roberts was just vetted and chosen in the past 2 weeks.   BushCo. has had 4 years to groom potential Supreme Court justices and the nominees are vetted years in advance.  I first heard of Clarence Thomas being slotted for the Supreme Court a full year before his nomination.

  Those who think  a 'liberal Souter type' snuck past the Bush screening team must love getting bitch slapped because they will be in for a rude awakening.

  by Grand Poobah on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 09:27:28 AM PDT

•  I'm with you on this one

  He's an Antonin Scalia in civil clothing.  He's no Souter, not by a mile.  Souter was never involved in politics.  This guy is far right Rpublican to the core.

  by davidgmills on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 03:01:20 PM PDT