As expected, the Senate this morning confirmed D.C. Circuit Appeals Court Judge John Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States by a 78-22 vote.
"Some conservative Republicans are so smitten with John Roberts ... that they speculate about another position they would like to see him hold: U.S. president," wrote Brian Knowlton of the International Herald Tribune. "Roberts, friends say, is flattered but uninterested: A life appointment to the high court, which could have the 50-year-old judge still ruling on the most fundamental issues facing American society in 2040, is in many ways a better, more influential, job."
Kind of sends shudders up your spine, doesn't it?
"If the president sends us a nominee who is committed to an agenda of turning back the clock on civil rights, workers' rights, individual autonomy or other vital constitutional protections, there will likely be a fight," Holland quoted Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) as saying.
The horseshit never stops, does it?
With Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), a man that anyone with any sense of history would have assumed would have voted "Nay" from his seat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, instead actually voting Roberts out of committee and therefore sure to vote for him on the Senate floor, one has to wonder if there are any Democrat senators left with any backbone at all – and the right-wing punditry still has the balls to claim that Democrats are doing everything they can to block Bush's Supreme Court picks!
"That is the message of the Democratic Party: 'No more conciliation'," wrote neo-con The National Review editor Jonah Goldberg for USA Today, after equating People for the American Way founder Norman Lear's call for "authenticity" in a high court nominee with being "irredeemably obstructionist."
JESUS! Roberts spends three days in front of the Judiciary Committee, testifying to equal parts of A) nothing substantive on the issues and B) what he thinks the committee members want to hear him say; he's got virtually no paper trail (that the White House will let out of its blood-sticky fingers, anyway); the mainstream press is so cowed by charges of "RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!" that it doesn't dare to read between the lines of a guy who once signed onto a White House legal brief calling for the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and whose lawyer wife gives free legal services of a major anti-abortion group – but no, Roberts is "authentic"; just ask Jonah!
Well, as of today, Roberts is the guy who'll head up the third Republican branch of government, the Judiciary, with whatever not-inconsiderable influence being Chief Justice of the United States carries with it, and he'll get to take part in deciding already-announced cases having to do with:
•The constitutionality of laws placing limits on campaign contributions;
•Claims of unconstitutional searches by police in two California cases;
•How states can use tax incentives to lure businesses into the state;
•Limits of state-law class action suits against investment companies that misled investors;
•How much the government can take from a person's lawsuit winnings to pay back Medicaid expenditures on that person's behalf;
•The time limits on a state inmate's ability to file a federal appeal in a second-degree murder case; and, of course,
•Whether Anna Nicole Smith got gypped out of her late husband's $88 million fortune
And that's just what's been announced. How about the other issues that we know will be hitting the high court in the not-too-distant future:
•Whether Judge Gary Lancaster properly dismissed obscenity-trafficking charges against Extreme Associates; and later, if things go as expected,
•Whether Rob Black and Lizzy Borden were properly convicted of those charges;
•Whether the government has the power to require Internet service providers to filter (or provide filtering software for) sexually-oriented Web sites (the COPA case);
•Whether 18 U.S.C. §2257 is an unconstitutional restriction on free sexual speech (Free Speech Coalition v. Gonzales);
•Whether the federal government has the power to bust, as obscene, porn productions that aren't even completed or being sold yet (Children's Safety Act of 2005);
•Whether laws against the sale of sex toys violate adults' privacy rights (Williams v. Alabama); and,
•More adult zoning, forfeiture and alleged obscenity cases than you can shake a stick at.
And that doesn't even count the inevitable election fraud cases, church/state separation cases, eminent domain cases, marijuana use cases, right-to-die cases, etc. that haven't even been begun yet...
All of which will also depend on who Bush/Rove's next Supreme Court nominee, who is expected to be announced today or tomorrow, will be.
"U.S. President George W. Bush is close to wrapping up bipartisan consultations with senators about his critical choice to replace Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a White House spokesman said on Tuesday," wrote a correspondent for Reuters News Service.
"Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a pro-choice Republican, strongly warned President Bush Monday against any "sharp turns" as he ponders a second Supreme Court vacancy," wrote Carolyn Lochhead of the San Francisco Chronicle.
No, the horseshit really never does stop.
Let's suppose that a nominee does get named today or tomorrow; does it seem at all within the realm of possibility that the "bipartisan consultations with senators" that Bush was "close to wrapping up ... on Tuesday" – two days ago – played any part in the selection of the nominee?
Or is it more likely that the nominee was selected months ago, thoroughly vetted by Karl Rove and his staff months ago after consultation with, likely, conservative religious leaders, conservative senators and conservative corporate owners and CEOs, and that whatever so-called "bipartisan consultations" took place were simply part of the ongoing "Bush Show" that's now into its fifth season on the national airwaves?
"Bush is under pressure from both parties to nominate a woman or a minority," Lochhead also wrote. "He hinted Monday that he might do so, saying he has 'thought about people from all walks of life. And I will put the person in to do the job. But I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country.'"
Indeed, diversity is one of the strengths of the country, so there's little doubt that Bush will nominate someone from that diverse group that includes white or Latin fundamentalist Christian men or women who oppose abortion rights, support PATRIOT Act-like encroachments on civil liberties, oppose extending (or even enforcing) the Freedom of Information Act, support extensions of the Commerce Clause into states-rights issues that affect "morality" – and who are friendly with or a relative of some already-high-ranking member of the administration or its favored lobbyists.
Shouldn't be too hard to find someone in that group, should it? And of course, whoever it is will have to have a paper trail as short or shorter than John Roberts.
The Religious Right, of course, has already pre-loaded its "How Can Those Obstructionist Democrats Plan Another Filibuster When They Haven't Even Questioned The Nominee Yet?" rants.
"Get set for 'Revenge of the Filibuster Nerds, Part II,'" wrote attorney Jan LaRue on the Concerned Women for America Web site. "Unless the President names Al Gore or Babs Streisand to the high Court, judicial filibuster number 30 or 40-something begins, but who's counting. The left, in and out of the Senate, will unleash attacks that will leave you thinking Bin Laden’s been wacked and they're writing his eulogy."
"The full Senate vote on John Roberts as the next Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court has not happened yet and already Democratic leaders are threatening an unprecedented filibuster - before even knowing who the next nominee is!" wrote Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council. "The choice of who sits on the Supreme Court is the sole discretion of the President of the United States, who then needs the approval of a majority of the Senate. The Democratic leadership, by threatening to filibuster ANY nominee they disapprove of, exposes their disregard for precedent and the Constitution."
"Advise and consent" obviously means nothing to these people – and, sadly, too little to too many senators.
"'Senator Harry Reid's threat to President Bush over his next Supreme Court nominee shows the level of desperation of liberals,' said Traditional Values Coalition Executive Director Mrs. Andrea Lafferty today," according to TVC's Web site. "Senator Reid apparently believes that the President should pick someone like Ruth Bader Ginsburg who thinks that prostitution is a constitutional right and that the age of consent for girls should be 12. These beliefs do not represent Americans' values. If any nominee in recent years has been a poke in the eye to the American people, it is Justice Ginsburg."
That Justice Ginsburg has never ruled in favor of legalizing prostitution, and in fact does not support lowering the age of consent to 12, has no effect on these bozos; they're on a roll.
"Urge President Bush To Appoint Another Scalia or Thomas," screams the headline on the American Family Association (AFA) Web site.
"Very soon, President Bush will appoint another justice to the Supreme Court," the screed continues. "This will be the most important nomination to the court in decades, perhaps ever. President Bush pledged in his campaign to appoint another justice in the mold of Scalia or Thomas. Urge him to keep that promise."
And to fulfill that urge, all one need do is push the little blast-fax button at the bottom of the page – but why bother? Bush, Rove and the entire neo-conservative wing of the administration already knows what AFA's supporters want – and rest assured, that's what they'll give them.
As Bette Davis' character says in All About Eve, "Hold onto your seats; it's gonna be a bumpy ride" ... and it will ... for about the next 50 years.
