Daily Kos

View Story | 19 comments

  •  Are you paying attention? (none / 0)

    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.

    Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

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

    [ Parent ]

    •  Roberts is Miguel Estrada, not David Souter (none / 0)

      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

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, I'm not (none / 0)

        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.

        Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

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

        [ Parent ]

    •  "Same mistake twice" (none / 0)

      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

      [ Parent ]

      •  Look (none / 0)

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

        Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

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

        [ Parent ]

        •  Then I'll decide against Tribe. (none / 0)

          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

          [ Parent ]

View Story | 19 comments