Despite our earlier report on the pleasure conservatives were taking in the John Roberts nomination, the approval is not unanimous. Ann Coulter, for one, is skeptical. According to Matt Drudge Coulter will be releasing the following statement:
"We don't know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever... Oh, yeah...we know he's argued cases before the supreme court. big deal; so has Larry Flynt's attorney."
So declares conservative columnist Ann Coulter in a new dispatch set for release.
Coulter declares: It means nothing that Roberts wrote briefs arguing for the repeal of Roe v. Wade when he worked for Republican administrations. He was arguing on behalf of his client, the United States of America. Roberts has specifically disassociated himself from those cases, dropping a footnote to a 1994 law review article that said:
"In the interest of full disclosure, the author would like to point out that as Deputy Solicitor General for a portion of the 1992-93 Term, he was involved in many of the cases discussed below. In the interest of even fuller disclosure, he would also like to point out that his views as a commentator on those cases do not necessarily reflect his views as an advocate for his former client, the United States."
This would have been the legal equivalent, after O.J.'s acquittal, of Johnnie Cochran saying, "hey, I never said the guy was innocent. I was just doing my job."
And it makes no difference that conservatives in the White House are assuring us Roberts can be trusted. We got the exact same assurances from officials working for the last president Bush about David Hackett Souter. I believe their exact words were, "Read our lips; Souter's a reliable conservative."
From the theater of the absurd category, the Republican National Committee's "talking points" on Roberts provide this little tidbit:
"In the 1995 case of Barry v. Little, Judge Roberts argued-free of charge-before the D.C. Court of Appeals on behalf of a class of the neediest welfare recipients, challenging a termination of benefits under the District's Public Assistance Act of 1982."
I'm glad to hear the man has a steady work record, but how did this make it to the top of his resume?
Finally, lets ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That's just unnatural.
If a smart and accomplished person goes this long without expressing an opinion, they'd better be pursuing the Miss America title.
That sounds like Ann. No doubt that when the port side web sites pick up her comments their paranoia will kick in and they'll immediately shift into conspiracy mode. They'll soon be surmising that Karl Rove has had Coulter raise these objections in a deliberate ploy to make liberals think that Roberts must be too moderate for conservative tastes. If conservatives don't like him, the reasoning will go, then he must be okay, and the libs will be gulled into softening their opposition to him.
Thus, they'll be exhorting each other, they must not be fooled. They must be wise as serpents and gentle as pit bulls. They must not allow Rove to make fools of them yet again. It'll be fun to watch.
