Reactions to the Roberts Nomination

The AP has a list of quotes made by people on both the right and the left in reaction to the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court (HT: SFGate.com via WorldNetDaily). They start the list with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, followed next by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.

"The president has chosen someone with suitable legal credentials, but that is not the end of our inquiry. The Senate must review Judge Roberts' record to determine if he has a demonstrated commitment to the core American values of freedom, equality and fairness." — Senate minority leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

"Judge Roberts is the kind of outstanding nominee that will make America proud. He embodies the qualities America expects in a justice on its highest court: someone who is fair, intelligent, impartial and committed to faithfully interpreting the Constitution and the law." — Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.

What a difference. The Democrats' leader doesn't seem to care about the Constitution, the rule of law, or impartiality. He cares about "freedom, equality, and fairness," words that make me wonder exactly what he means by them. By "equality" (which, by the way, is one of France's stated ideals, not one of ours), does he mean making everyone the same? Would that include keeping people from excelling, so the average person doesn't get any feelings hurt? Would that include redistribution of wealth? I'm not sure I want a Supreme Court Justice who is devoted to equality more than to the Constitution.

From the Lefty groups:

"We are extremely disappointed that President Bush has chosen such a divisive nominee for the highest court in the nation, rather than a consensus nominee who would protect individual liberty and uphold Roe v. Wade." — NARAL Pro-Choice America.

"John Roberts' record raises serious concerns as well as questions about where he stands on crucial legal and constitutional issues. Replacing O'Connor with someone who is not committed to upholding Americans' rights, liberties and legal protections would be a constitutional catastrophe." — Ralph Neas, president of the liberal People for the American Way.

I get so tired of the Left saying (in different words, of course), "If you don't do what we want you to do, you're being divisive."

What makes them think Roberts is out to destroy "individual liberty" and to strike down "Americans' rights, liberties and legal protections?"

I listened to Hugh's extended radio show last night and heard him discuss a case that Roberts wrote an opinion (Sorry I don't have the details right--I'm operating from memory after a night's sleep) on a case in which a 12-year-old girl was arrested for having a french fry on public transit. The law apparently was well-intentioned, requiring minors to be arrested and held for their parents to pick them up, rather than dumping misbehaved youths out on the streets to face who-knows-what danger. Hugh summarized Roberts' analysis of the case as, basically, "Yes, the law is stupid, but it doesn't violate the constitution." Roberts did not nullify the law, even though he personally didn't agree with it. He tested the law against the constitution, which is what we want our judges to do. The publicity over the case caused the city where the arrest occurred to rethink and eventually to change the law.

Lefty activist judges would say, "This law is stupid and I don't like it, so I declare it unconstitutional and strike it down." This approach takes the legislative process away from the people. Leaving the process with the people, as Roberts did, is the right approach.

From Righty groups:

"Senate Democrats, especially those seeking re-election next year, should know that we will be watching them carefully. If they again attempt to attack a nominee's faith or pro-life convictions, their constituents will know about it and they will be held accountable." — Father Frank Pavone, national director, Priests for Life.

"Liberal pressure groups will insist that Senate Democrats filibuster against Judge Roberts, unless he pledges in advance to vote against allowing elected legislators to place meaningful limits on abortion." — Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee.

"There were a lot of unknowns about Justice Souter. He really was almost a blank slate. It's not the same with Judge Roberts. He has clearly enunciated his view of his judicial philosophy." — Tony Perkins of the conservative Family Research Council.

I hope this last statement will help Ann Coulter cool her heels over the nomination of Roberts. She's concerned (link here) that Roberts is a blank slate like Souter was and will become the next Souter on the Court, rather than the next Scalia.

More statements from other Senators in another post...

Update:

Hugh gives a more thorough explanation of the "French Fry Case," a case that will be thrown around in the John Roberts debates until confirmation is completed. Here's the link.