A lower case yippee! for the president.

So it was not "Joy" Clement after all. I would like to think that evil genius Karl Rove was up to his old tricks again, but it was probably some fool reporter who got carried away.

From National Review Online's Bench Memos comes the latest on the nominee and the fight. (Interspersed, as usual, with my brilliant comments.)

Bench Memos
ALL EYES ON THE COURTS
[ home archives e-mail ]

Get a Load[Ramesh Ponnuru 07/20 08:34 AM]
Of Linda Greenhouse's front-page "news analysis," in which it is posited that Scalia and Thomas wish to "recaptur[e] a distant constitutional paradise in which the court was faithful to the original intent of the framers" and are "at the margin." Also, they are flame throwers. I am beginning to think Greenhouse might be a liberal.

I wish. The real Constitution and flame throwers. Sounds like a plan to get bin Laden.

This Morning[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/20 08:30 AM]
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE POOL Rose Garden
7:30 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, how are you? I just had a cup of coffee with the nominee and told him I thought things were off to a very good start for his nomination. I'm not surprised — he's highly qualified for the job. He's the kind of person that will bring great dignity to the Court. Judge Roberts is off to the Senate this morning to begin his consultations. I'm confident the senators will come to realize what I've come to realize: We're lucky to have a man of such wisdom and intellectual strength willing to serve our country.
I'm also confident that the process will move forward in a dignified, civil way. In my conversations with senators last night, we discussed how important it is that Judge Roberts get a fair hearing, a timely hearing and a hearing that will bring great credit to our nation and to the United States Senate. And so I told Judge Roberts over coffee that we'll provide all the support that's necessary for the senators to be able to make up their minds, that we will push the process forward, because he and I both agree that it's important that he be sworn in prior to the Court reconvening in October, and that I wished him all the best.
So I appreciate you coming by for coffee this morning.
JUDGE ROBERTS: Thank you very much.
END 7:32 A.M. EDT

More Radio[NRO Staff 07/20 08:25 AM]
Shannen Coffin and Ed Whelan will be on Michael Graham's radio show this ayem.

Indiana Boy[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/20 08:22 AM]
Putting a little pressure on Evan Bayh.

Abortion in the Court[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/20 06:33 AM]
Here's the National Right to Life Committee on the stakes.

Boring, But that's Alright[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/20 06:30 AM]
John Podhoretz on the pick

Last Night and This Morning[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/20 06:21 AM]
totally feels like campaign season. Which is somewhat appropriate inasmuch as this is one of the most important reasons Bush was reelected — the courts.

Yep. I think I read that somewhere.

What She Said[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/20 06:11 AM]
Hanna Rosin: "At the Capitol, Democrats Wait To Fill in the Blank." Confirmation of the obvious.

The Harvard Majority[Matthew J. Franck 07/20 06:05 AM]
More trivia: With the addition of Roberts to the Court, five of the nine justices will have their law degrees from Harvard, the others being Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, and Breyer. A sixth justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, began at Harvard but transferred to Columbia. The others? Thomas graduated from Yale's law school, and only Rehnquist (from Stanford) and Stevens (from Northwestern) graduated from law schools too far west to smell the Atlantic Ocean.
Harvard is a huge and diverse law school, and it is not to be expected that its graduates all think alike — as we can see they don't when we look at the justices who studied there. And a nominee's law school, especially when it is one of the handful every student wants to attend, should not be held against him. But is it the best of all possible worlds when a majority of the nine most powerful lawyers in America went to the same law school?

Sticking with the Talking Points[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/20 05:56 AM]
The NYTimes is a lot more non-committal and suspicious about Roberts in its editorial.

"A Fight, Maybe, but Not a Battle"[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/20 05:52 AM]
So says Ron Brownstein. He writes:
In effect, Roberts may represent an effort to thread the needle in filling the court vacancy. The selection could offer Bush an opportunity to maximize his chance of a relatively smooth confirmation while minimizing the danger of either conservative disaffection or scorched-earth Democratic opposition.

The Decision Process: The Clincher[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/20 05:42 AM]
From Nina Easton:
A senior White House official stressed yesterday that the choice reflected a personal connection that Bush made with Roberts during the vetting process.
''He really hit it off with Roberts," the official said. ''As you know, the president is a person of intuition and he saw in [Roberts] not only a brilliant legal mind but a terrific judicial temperament. This guy is a thinker. He's not a polarizer."

Oh, no. The Putin Syndrome. ("I've looked into his eyes, and seen his soul, and I liked what I saw." )

Wow[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/20 05:37 AM]
From the Washington Post editorial this morning:
Judge Roberts is a conservative, but he has never been an ideological crusader; he has admirers among liberals. If confirmed as the successor to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, it is likely that he will shift the Supreme Court toward the right. But his nomination is not a provocation to Democrats — as some other possible nominees would have been. Mr. Bush deserves credit for selecting someone with the potential to attract broad support."

Think Roberts Is Young?[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/19 11:21 PM]
Joseph Story was 32.

Say It Ain't So, Joe[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/19 11:20 PM]
WashPost:
Among Democrats, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) may well be the most crucial voice in the Gang of 14. Republicans were pointing last night to a statement he made last week that appeared to say that he saw no justification for a filibuster of Roberts, but an aide said last night that he was misinterpreted and would wait for a fuller examination of Roberts's record before making any judgment about his suitability.

Scroll Down[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/19 11:14 PM]
to about 7:47 this evening for the Roberts reax...and check The Corner too.

Watch for Shannen Coffin on GMA on ABC tomorrow[NRO Staff 07/19 11:11 PM]

And Cliff May on CNN's American Morning...

Coffin on Roberts[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/19 11:05 PM]
Shannen has a piece up on JR. And I have a plea to the Senate.

Schumer on Roberts[Jonathan Adler 07/19 11:01 PM]
Hugh Hewitt transcribed Senator Schumer's initial reaction:
"There's no question that Judge Roberts has outstanding legal credentials and an appropriate legal temperment and demeanor. But his actual judicial record is limited to only two years on the D.C. Circuit Couirt. Fot the rest of his career he has been arguiong cases as an able lawyer for others leaving many of his personal views unknown. For these reasons it is vital that Judge Roberts answer a wide range of questions openly honestly and fully in the coming months. His views will affet a generation of Americans and it is his obligatio during the nomination process to let the American people know those views. The burden is on a nominee to the Supreme Court to prove that he is worthy, not on the Senate to prove that he is unworthy. I voted against Judge Roberts or the D.C. Court of Appeals because he didn't answer questions as fully and openly when he appeared before the committee. For instance, when I asked himn a question that others have answered — to identify three Supreme Court cases of which he was critical, he refused."


Easy. Here are three off the top of my head. Dred Scott v. Sandford, Buck v. Bell, and Griswold v. Connecticut . Put those in you crack pipe and smoke 'em, Chucky.

Alberto Gonzales[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/19 10:53 PM]
on John Roberts

"Dumbass Questions"[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/19 10:47 PM]
"Some [of his questions] I totally disagree with," Hatch of Utah said. "Some I think are dumbass questions, between you and me. I am not kidding you. I mean, as much as I love and respect you, I just think that's true."

HeeHee. A funny mormon. Imagine that. Score one for Orin.

Roberts Trivia[Matthew J. Franck 07/19 10:44 PM]
I join in the general acclamation of John Roberts as the president's nominee to the Supreme Court. This was a bold, brave choice. The president revealed much about his own character as someone who makes decisions on a principled basis, does not pick fights gratuitously, but is not afraid that someone else will pick one either.
Here's a bit of Roberts trivia: he will be the first former clerk to a justice of the Supreme Court who will join the Court as a justice himself while his old boss is still serving — assuming that Roberts is confirmed and that Chief Justice Rehnquist, for whom he clerked 25 years ago, is still serving when he is sworn in. Four other justices in the Court's history have previously served as clerks to justices of the Court, but none before has joined the Court alongside his or her former boss. (Anyone care to name the other four?) As the junior justice, Roberts will relieve Stephen Breyer (after eleven years) of the duty of answering the door when the justices are closeted for their private conferences. I can imagine the twinkle in Rehnquist's eye when his old clerk takes up those duties.

Stop the Madness![Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/19 10:29 PM]
Consultation Craziness: Ralph Neas on CNN just announced he is disappointed that Harry Reid and Bill Frist weren't standing next to him as he made his announcement.
It's going to be a long ridiculous ride.

What is he, a girl?

Durbin[Mark R. Levin 07/19 10:24 PM]
I understand Dick Durbin's original draft statement accused Roberts of being Pol Pot's lawyer.

HeeHee. That's a good one.

What People for the American Way Is Saying[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/19 10:23 PM]
Kathryn :
This evening, President Bush nominated John Roberts to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. The Radical Right has been chomping at the bit for weeks in anticipation of this announcement. The Senate must now stand up to the pressure to simply rubber-stamp the President's pick. Tell your Senators to fulfill their constitutional obligation to advise and consent.
The next 24 hours are crucial. Tell your Senators to withold their support for Robert's nomination until they have all the facts about his troubling record. Unless you and thousands of other activists speak out right away, the Bush administration may lock up the support of dozens of members before the confirmation process truly gets underway and the American people have a chance to learn where Roberts stands.
At this critical moment, we need you to do more than just call or write your Senators. We need you to do both, and get your friends to do the same.
1) Call Senator Schumer at (202) 224-6542 and Senator Clinton at (202) 224-4451to demand that they thoroughly review John Robert's record before lending him their support.
2) Write Senators Schumer and Clinton to make sure they heard the message you delivered to them by phone.
3) Forward this email to your friends, amplifying your message by getting them to call and write their Senators themselves.
John RobertsWhat we know about John Robert's record as Deputy Solicitor General and as a judge shows a troubling lack of concern for the fundamental civil and constitutional rights of all Americans. Americans deserve a justice who will protect our rights and freedoms. Serious questions must be addressed before Robert's nomination to the nation's highest court can be evaluated properly.
Some alarming aspects of Robert's record they must consider include:
Reproductive and Privacy Rights: Roberts urged the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade while arguing before the Court as Deputy Solicitor General in a case that did not even directly concern that issue. His brief plainly states that "Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled."
Separation of Church and State: Roberts argued against clear First Amendment protections for religious liberty and in favor of officially sponsored school prayer at graduation ceremonies before the Supreme Court, which rejected his argument.
Environmental Protections: As a judge, Roberts suggested in a dissent that the Endangered Species Act was unconstitutional as applied to a California development case.
Veteran Protections: Roberts argued American POWs tortured in Iraq during the Gulf War should not be able to utilize federal courts to pursue their claims.
Excessive Arrest Procedures: Roberts ruled against a 12-year old girl who was handcuffed, arrested and taken away by police for eating a single French fry on the D.C. Metro, even though an adult would only have gotten a paper citation in that situation.Your Senators need to hear from you today — there must not be a rush to confirm John Roberts until all the facts are in! Call and write your Senators to demand that they fulfill their constitutional obligations of advice and consent - our rights hang in the balance!
— Your Allies at People For the American Way
SchumerPhone: (202) 224-6542ClintonPhone: (202) 224-4451
Click hear to send them a message. http://www.savethecourt.org/WriteTheSenate
Support PFAW's Supreme Court Defense Fundhttp://www.SaveTheCourt.org/support
www.SaveTheCourt.org

More like People for the Backdoor Way.

I Know I'm an Obsessed Junkie Type[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/19 10:20 PM]
But at 10:14 I realized Greta was already back in Aruba.

"Looks Like Him"[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/19 10:11 PM]
Susan Estrich just said on Fox that Roberts "looks like" Bush. Uh, meaning, he's a white guy?

Roberts in His Own Words[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/19 10:10 PM]
His text from tonight.

Bush's Announcement[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/19 10:09 PM]
Here's the text

The Knights of Columbus Get Behind the Choice[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/19 09:49 PM]
Supreme Knight calls Supreme Court nomination "a first rate choice" Judge Roberts "among the finest judges in the land"
(NEW HAVEN, CT.) - Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson, head of the 1.7 million member Knights of Columbus, this evening called Judge John Roberts "a first rate choice for the United States Supreme Court." President Bush announced that he would nominate Roberts in a nationally-televised address earlier tonight.
"Judge Roberts is exactly the kind of nominee that members of both parties have described as the kind of choice the President should make," Anderson said. "He is one of the brightest legal minds in America, graduating at the top of his class at Harvard Law School, and has a well-deserved reputation for fairness, integrity and superb judicial temperament on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit."
"During his years in private practice," Anderson recalled, "he argued a case pro bono - free of charge - on behalf of some of the District's neediest welfare recipients, who were about to lose their benefits under the D.C.Public Assistance Act. He is someone who knows and appreciates the plight of the poor, especially those who have the most difficult time getting fair and even-handed treatment in our legal system."
"Judge Roberts' experience in private practice, in the Executive Branch, and as a Judge make him exceptionally well-qualified to serve on the U.S.Supreme Court, and we applaud President Bush for making such an excellent nomination to fill the vacancy created by Justice O'Connor's retirement,"Anderson concluded.
The Knights of Columbus is the world's largest Catholic lay organization, with more than 1.7 million members around the world.

It seems Judge Roberts is a Catholic.

Memo to our protestant friends: Do you see a pattern here? Scalia, Thomas, and perhaps Roberts. Right Thinking: It is not an accident.

Of course, we do not know what sort of Catholic Roberts is. After all, Senator Murder (a.k.a. Senator Divorce and Re-Marry) likes to call himself a Catholic when it suits his purposes.

It seems the Bay State Butcher wants the nominee to answer some penetrating (ha! get it?) questions about babyslaying.

Sure, Ted. Let me pierce your skull with these scissors, suck out what few brains you have left, and in a few seconds all your questions will be answered. Forever. However, I am willing to bet $20 you will not like them.

From an RNC Release...Some Good Rounding Up[Kathryn Jean Lopez 07/19 09:45 PM]
That these are from Jeffrey Toobin, who wants snapped at me on air for daring to be "divisive" is not small thing:

CNN's Jeffrey Toobin: "[Roberts] Is A Very Smart Guy. He's Argued In Front Of The U.S. Supreme Court, Which Is Awfully Good Practice." (CNN's "Paula Zahn Live," 7/19/05)

Toobin: "[Roberts] Is A Very Distinguished Lawyer. This Is The Kind Of Lawyer That People Have Been Talking About For 20 Years, About Being On The Supreme Court. He Is Someone Who Has A — Who Has The Experience That Makes Him A Plausible Candidate." (CNN's "Paula Zahn Live," 7/19/05)

Toobin: "When It Comes To Credentials, There Can't Be Any Argument That John Roberts Isn't Qualified." (CNN, "Paula Zahn Live," 7/19/05)
Toobin: "Harry Reid Has To Bow To Reality. He Does Have Suitable Credentials." (CNN, 7/19/05)More here.

Roberts's Enemies[Jonathan Adler 07/19 09:43 PM]
RedState.org has a round-up of those who opposed John Roberts's nomination to the D.C. Circuit. Of course, in the end he made it through committee 14-3, and was confirmed by unanimous consent.

Nan Aron on Roberts[Jonathan Adler 07/19 09:39 PM]
Nan Aron is on record saying the Alliance for Justice would urge Senate Democrats to filibuster the nomination of Judge Roberts to the Supreme Court (and she said it at the time most folks thought CJ Rehnquist would be retiring).

Scalia on Roberts[Jonathan Adler 07/19 09:36 PM]
According to Stuart Buck, Scalia is a fan.