HOW CONSERVATIVE IS JOHN ROBERTS?

Coming up with an answer to that question depends a lot on what side of the political fence you stand.

Some conservatives are troubled about the strength of John Roberts' allegiance to their agenda. They want to be sure that as a Supreme he will rule in a conservative friendly fashion. Understandably, they don't want to get "Souter-ed" again.

Senator Sam Brownback, for example, has been quite vocal in his doubts about Roberts. However, his meeting with the nominee on Monday afternoon has seemed to alleviate some of his concerns.

One notable conservative who is still screaming that the sky is falling is Ann Coulter. She has been spreading her alarmist message since Bush announced Roberts as the nominee.

In addition to her numerous TV and radio appearances, Coulter has devoted two columns to her doubts about Roberts.

Read her thoughts on the stealth nominee:

SOUTER IN ROBERTS' CLOTHING


FOOL ME EIGHT TIMES, SHAME ON ME


Ann should read David E. Rosenbaum's column in today's New York Times.

In his analysis, "Court Nominee's Record Reveals an Advocate for the Right," Rosenbaum supplies a litany of instances that he believes settles the question of the degree of Roberts' conservatism.

Rosenbaum writes:

[John Roberts'] internal memorandums, some of which have become public in recent days, reveal a philosophy every bit as conservative as that of the policy makers on the front lines of the Reagan revolution and give more definition to his image than was apparent in the first days after President Bush picked him to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court.

On almost every issue he dealt with where there were basically two sides, one more conservative than the other, the documents from the National Archives and the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library show that Judge Roberts, now of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, advocated the more conservative course. Sometimes, he took positions even more conservative than those of his prominent superiors.

Liberals are most likely horrified by Rosenbaum's revelations. Conservatives, on the other hand, might find comfort in the information Rosenbaum has gleaned from Roberts' writings.

I think this entire discussion on the political views of John Roberts shows that the founding framers intention to establish an apolitical, independent judiciary is unrealized. Obviously, many are acknowledging that the Supreme Court, and the judicial branch in general, has become as political as the legislative and executive arms of American government.

Ideally, the politics of a judge shouldn't matter. Judges are meant to interpret the law, not make it.

The night Bush announced John Roberts as his nominee, Chuckie Schumer told reporters, "This, the Supreme Court, is far different than the court of appeals. The Supreme Court makes law. We hope they do it by interpreting precedent and following the legislature. But they make law."

Activist judges, judges that overstep their bounds, do indeed make law. That's unconstitutional, but that's what Chuckie wants.

Liberals are under the impression that the Constitution is a living document. In other words, the Constitutional Convention has never adjourned. From this perspective, judges alone have the power to rewrite the Constitution on a whim, bypassing the amendment process.

Originalists, judges that adhere to the Constitution as a stable document, interpret law. They don't write it.

See the difference?

President Bush promised to appoint Originalists to the high court. That's what I care about.

I want an Originalist to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. I have no doubt that the founding framers would want the same.

How politically conservative is John Roberts?

It SHOULDN'T matter.