Coulter: Wrong About John Roberts
Here’s something else Ann Coulter was wrong about: John Roberts. Remember when she said, in a column titled Souter in Roberts’ clothing:
We don’t know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever.
And in another column she said:
Of course it’s possible that Roberts will buck . . . all known human history when it comes to the Supreme Court and be another Scalia or Thomas. (And we’ll hear this news while attending a World Series game between the Cubs and, oh, say … the Detroit Tigers.)
Guess what, Ann? So far his opinions have been quite conservative indeed. We got even more evidence this week that he is pretty firmly in the Scalia and Thomas camp: a dissent from a decision allowing a claim of actual innocence to go forward. Thomas’s opinion was joined by Scalia and Thomas. (Alito didn’t take part in the case. Also note that I haven’t read the decision yet, and will not comment on it until I do.)
And this is hardly the first time that these three have joined forces.
Time to eat some crow, Ann. Maybe you already have, and I missed it.
Good God, she really is as bad as Ted Rall.
[That’s a devastating rebuttal of the exact point I *wasn’t* making. — P]
Xrlq (f52b4f) — 6/14/2006 @ 7:16 amHe makes it pretty clear that he is a “law and order” judge in the same sense as Thomas and Scalia. He thought that the majority was relaxing the Shlup standard whereas he wanted it brought closer to the Herrera standard for defaulted constitutional claims. He might have been writing the majority opinion if it had been a non-capital case. It’s a death penalty case, though, and death penalty cases, lately, have been receiving very close scrutiny from Justice Kennedy. I’m still waiting for the decision abolishing the death penalty altogether.
nk (8214ee) — 6/14/2006 @ 8:03 amAND, though the Cubs are stumbling, look who has the best record in baseball at this point—the Detroit Tigers.
tbaugh (4b527b) — 6/14/2006 @ 12:53 pmWe got a couple of good years out of O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter too.
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 6/14/2006 @ 1:23 pmAND, though the Cubs are stumbling
I was sucked into the Cubs’ maelstrom many years ago. Though I haven’t resurfaced, I have kind of stopped caring, you know, like they say drowning or hypothermic people just give up after a while.
Anwyn (01a5cc) — 6/14/2006 @ 2:26 pmWell, heck, Clam Comment #4, how could they not have been an improvement over those they were replacing: Stewart, Powell and Brennan? If you mean they were no Burgers or Rehnquists, ideologically, I agree with you. On the other hand, I think that CJ Roberts is every bit as good a judge as Burger was and I think that will keep him “honest” in his judicial philosophy.
nk (956ea1) — 6/14/2006 @ 4:18 pm“every bit as good a judge as Burger”
wow, getting really generous with the compliments, are we? /sarcasm.
Angry Clam (a7c6b1) — 6/14/2006 @ 9:33 pm“Time to eat some crow, Ann”
Crow? I’d be surprised if she ate a shred of lettuce.
Sean P (a6e946) — 6/14/2006 @ 10:02 pmIf I used the expression “lol” (and I don’t), I’d use it now.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 6/14/2006 @ 10:07 pmCheck out the opinion in Hudson v. Michigan issued by the Supremes today. Opinion by Scalia, with Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy joining – The case eliminates exclusion of evidence as a remedy for “knock and notice” violations when police serve search warrants. But the language regarding the exclusionary rule is remarkable – and seems to signal a significant change in the Court’s willingness to throw out evidence for violations of the Fourth Amendment.
CStudent (59bfb8) — 6/15/2006 @ 3:18 pm