How the Democrats Will Attack Roberts

With a sterling resume and few, if any, enemies, Judge John Roberts stands
a very good chance of confirmation. That won't stop Democrats from
conjuring up reasons to oppose his nomination. Since they can't get him on
fitness or temperament, they will manufacture excuses to vote against him
or to claim grave "concerns." Here they are:

1) They will demand documents he wrote while working in the Solicitor
General's office. This is the same break with precedent that they used to
(de facto) filibuster Miguel Estrada, and that was refused by Alberto
Gonzales as White House Counsel. Seven former Solicitors General, who
served Presidents from both parties, wrote a letter opposing the
Democrats' unprecedented tactic. It is critical that the attorneys in the
SG office be able to discuss ideas freely and candidly without worrying if
they will be dug up in some future confirmation hearing. The U.S.
government is the SG's client, and public disclosure of internal documents
is a bad reason for the same reason there is attorney-client privilege.
Nevertheless, the Democrats will re-use this red herring as they
successfully did with Estrada.

2) They will ask Roberts to comment on specific cases. Even commenting on
prior cases is problematic, since they have bearing on potential future
cases. Roberts will abide by the Ginsburg Rule, which was established by
Clinton-nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Democrats will demonstrate their
hypocrisy by applying double-standards: nominees by Democratic presidents
can hide behind the Ginsburg Rule but not those nominated by Republicans.

3) They will claim he is against abortion rights because of his work in
the SG's office on an abortion case where he wrote that Roe v. Wade has no
Constitutional basis. In his capacity as a lawyer for the government,
under the administration of George H. W. Bush, it was his job to advocate
for his client. His work on that case reflects his personal views on Roe
just as much as when the ACLU defends a Nazi's right to free speech.
Besides, everyone knows that Roe v. Wade has no Constitutional basis.

These are the tactics the Democrats will use to undermine Roberts, because
they have nothing else, so don't be surprised by them. After all, Chuck
Schumer already telegraphed these tactics on Tuesday.

How the Democrats Will Attack Roberts

With a sterling resume and few, if any, enemies, Judge John Roberts stands a
very good chance of confirmation. That won't stop Democrats from conjuring
up reasons to oppose his nomination. Since they can't get him on fitness or
temperament, they will manufacture excuses to vote against him or to claim
grave "concerns." Here they are:

1) They will demand documents he wrote while working in the Solicitor
General's office. This is the same break with precedent that they used to
(de facto) filibuster Miguel Estrada, and that was refused by Alberto
Gonzales as White House Counsel. Seven former Solicitors General, who served
Presidents from both parties, wrote a letter opposing the Democrats'
unprecedented tactic. It is critical that the attorneys in the SG office be
able to discuss ideas freely and candidly without worrying if they will be
dug up in some future confirmation hearing. The U.S. government is the SG's
client, and public disclosure of internal documents is a bad reason for the
same reason there is attorney-client privilege. Nevertheless, the Democrats
will re-use this red herring as they successfully did with Estrada.

2) They will ask Roberts to comment on specific cases. Even commenting on
prior cases is problematic, since they have bearing on potential future
cases. Roberts will abide by the Ginsburg Rule, which was established by
Clinton-nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Democrats will demonstrate their
hypocrisy by applying double-standards: nominees by Democratic presidents
can hide behind the Ginsburg Rule but not those nominated by Republicans.

3) They will claim he is against abortion rights because of his work in
the SG's office on an abortion case where he wrote that Roe v. Wade has no
Constitutional basis. In his capacity as a lawyer for the government, under
the administration of George H. W. Bush, it was his job to advocate for his
client. His work on that case reflects his personal views on Roe just as
much as when the ACLU defends a Nazi's right to free speech. Besides,
everyone knows that Roe v. Wade has no Constitutional basis.

These are the tactics the Democrats will use to undermine Roberts, because
they have nothing else, so don't be surprised by them. After all, Chuck
Schumer already telegraphed these tactics on Tuesday.

How the Democrats Will Attack Roberts

With a sterling resume and few, if any, enemies, Judge John Roberts stands

very good chance of confirmation. That won't stop Democrats from conjuring
up reasons to oppose his nomination. Since they can't get him on fitness

temperament, they will manufacture excuses to vote against him or to claim
grave "concerns." Here they are:

1) They will demand documents he wrote while working in the Solicitor
General's office. This is the same break with precedent that they used to
(de facto) filibuster Miguel Estrada, and that was refused by Alberto
Gonzales as White House Counsel. Seven former Solicitors General, who

Presidents from both parties, wrote a letter opposing the Democrats'
unprecedented tactic. It is critical that the attorneys in the SG office

able to discuss ideas freely and candidly without worrying if they will be
dug up in some future confirmation hearing. The U.S. government is the

client, and public disclosure of internal documents is a bad reason for

same reason there is attorney-client privilege. Nevertheless, the

will re-use this red herring as they successfully did with Estrada.

2) They will ask Roberts to comment on specific cases. Even commenting

prior cases is problematic, since they have bearing on potential future
cases. Roberts will abide by the Ginsburg Rule, which was established by
Clinton-nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Democrats will demonstrate their
hypocrisy by applying double-standards: nominees by Democratic presidents
can hide behind the Ginsburg Rule but not those nominated by Republicans.

3) They will claim he is against abortion rights because of his work in
the SG's office on an abortion case where he wrote that Roe v. Wade has no
Constitutional basis. In his capacity as a lawyer for the government,

the administration of George H. W. Bush, it was his job to advocate for

client. His work on that case reflects his personal views on Roe just as
much as when the ACLU defends a Nazi's right to free speech. Besides,
everyone knows that Roe v. Wade has no Constitutional basis.

These are the tactics the Democrats will use to undermine Roberts, because
they have nothing else, so don't be surprised by them. After all, Chuck
Schumer already telegraphed these tactics on Tuesday.




--
"The Democratic tent has shrunk to the size of a dunce cap. There's no

for Conservatives like me. We used to have Moderates and Conservatives in
the party. Then they ran us out."


- Sen. Zell Miller