You can watch the Judiciary Committee vote online today at the Washington Post and at C-Span 3. I think the Post is better.

Senator Specter began with his "yes" vote at 9:40 this morning. It looks like the Democrats are pursuing a feeble "Good Cop/Bad Cop" strategy with Leahy voting yes while Biden, Kennedy, Feinstein and others go with the predictable "no."

Look, I can't resist: this is a "Stuck on Stupid" strategy for the Democrats. They want a more "moderate" candidate next, but why should the President bother? If he can't get these guys for Roberts, he won't get them for anyone else.

Posted by Charmaine at 11:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (1)

The Judiciary Committee will vote on the Roberts nomination on Thursday. . .

UPDATE: Left-wingers haven't given up yet. One group is trying to mobilize bloggers to action:

All progressive blogs must FEATURE a prominent Stop Roberts action center. If you have a web page of any kind, the absolute bare minimum is to have in the top fold of your main index page (if not on every page of your site) the toll-free Capitol telephone number (877-762-8762), plus an exhortation to call your senators specifically to oppose Roberts, and not in teeny-tiny type, but in large bold type that nobody could miss.

This cuts both ways. Do call your Senator, and ask them to Support Roberts. Ask them the key question: if you can't support this nominee, who could you support?

Posted by Charmaine at 09:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

What happens when you throw a (political) war and no one shows up?? I was completely immersed in the Roberts hearing this week, but it turned out to be a lot of heat, but very little fire. More on the hearings to come, so do stop back by.

More importantly, my dad had an angiogram yesterday which revealed one of his arteries had 95% blockage. Putting the stent in was unusually difficult, the doctor said. But, he is doing very well and headed home this afternoon, and we are so grateful.

So. Here's a little political humor for my dad . . . who will love it.

Did Bob Hope and Paulette Goddard watch the John Roberts hearings? This clip from The Ghost Breakers is 24 seconds of perfect political humor. . .

No spoilers here, so let me just say: Some things haven't changed since 1940.

This is a movie I have to rent.

UPDATE: With thanks to my friend, Cherie. And Neddy at Kerfuffles has this clip, too.

Posted by Charmaine at 01:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

. . . with no notes. Major power move. Impressive.

Posted by Charmaine at 03:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Bush made the announcement at 8:00 from the Oval Office.

UPDATE:

On the Left, it's all about the quotas. From Armando at Daily Kos:

In short, Social Conservatives have gotten their nominee - his name is John Roberts. For replacing O'Connor, Bush must pick a Justice like O'Connor, not Scalia, Thomas or Rehnquist.

No. No. No. There is no such thing as an ideological quota per seat on the Court. Or gender. Or race.

Posted by Charmaine at 08:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

At 10:00, I'll be attending a "Women for Roberts" press conference at the National Press Club. Check back for pictures -- I'll do my best to get our MC, the elusive (and so reasoned and audacious!) Kathryn Lopez of NRO on film. . .

Here's my statement:

WASHINGTON, D.C., Aug. 24 - President Bush has been criticized for nominating a man to fill retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court. The National Organization for Women argues that appointing a woman committed to "upholding equality for all" would have been the better choice. Even Justice O'Connor herself remarked that Roberts was "good in every way, except he's not a woman."

But there should not be a "women's seat" on the Supreme Court. The best guarantor of women's rights is the Constitution, not the double X chromosome.

Senator Ken Salazar (D, CO) wrote to the President expressing "disappointment" that the nominee was not a woman. Invoking his own two daughters, Salazar said we should be sending young women the message that "their gender creates no limitations for them." And that the Roberts nomination sends "the opposite message."

Senator Salazar is wrong. I have three daughters. I would prefer they get the message that their achievements are based on accomplishment, not tokenism and quotas. . . We will know women have gained true equality only when lists of potential Supreme Court nominees include men . . . and women. . . for every seat on the Court, not just some arbitrarily designated "women's seats."

Posted by Charmaine at 01:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Matt Drudge is reporting that the New York Times is "investigating" the adoption records of John and Jane Roberts' kids.

I said it was hardball.

Posted by Charmaine at 03:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (2)

The LA Times is reporting that John Roberts gave pro bono advice to gay rights groups, serving on a moot court, in the Romer v. Evans case while a Partner at Hogan and Hartson.

Nathan Newman is enjoying the story.

Posted by Charmaine at 10:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (2)

Plaidgate makes Wikipedia. . .

Posted by Charmaine at 10:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

the blogger
who dares not speak his name
he lieth, for his name is Shame
with prose off-colour
of foulest humour
...his fame: Dishonour.

With apologies to Lord Alfred Bruce Douglas.

Posted by Charmaine at 12:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Ann Althouse

Ann Althouse weighs in on what she is calling "Plaidgate."

To her credit, Ann isn't backing down:

But you have to see the sequence of photos of Roberts grouped with lots of men and not one woman. The overall picture of enthusiastic male comradery is quite strong. Yet, of course, the NYT has complete deniability. Shame on me, they can say, for reading anything into it. That's why I considered it "subtly constructed."

That's key, the "complete deniability." That's what caught my attention, the question: Was the piece hardball politics? Bob Sikes, wrote in Ann's comments, that the Times profile was "a fine, well-crafted 'dog-whistle' piece."

Anyway, Ann does have some very smart reader-commenters. (Meaning: they agree with me!) One man, Dirty Harry responded to Ann's "plausible deniability" refrain by saying:

No, they don't [have deniability]. What [the NYTimes has] is a long track record of brilliantly written but biased hit pieces. And they're the only ones getting "outted" in the dust-up.

Yoest . . .led with the pants and emphasized them by including the picture. She reinforces your point, . . .but has also selected a single detail to highlight in order to expose or accentuate how ludicrous and contrived the implied insinuations truly are.

He gets it. Funny how the Lefties in their rush to brand me humourless, missed the joke right in front of them.

Bill Kristol says that the confirmation will be a battle. The Americablog throws a dud bomb, Is Supreme Court Nominee Roberts Lying Already?

Little Miss Attila gives us a flavor of the upcoming months with Anita and Clarence; John and TBA.

Villainous Company has the true Liberal Litmus Test. Tip of the bonnet to MaxedOutMama and John Roberts the Catholic.

Posted by Charmaine at 09:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

From Waco Kid

This is the reason why conservatives should be concerned about Hillary and the next presidential election: She says she's not opposing Roberts, from HillaryClinton.com,

I look forward to the Committee's findings so that I can make an informed decision...

In Clinton undecided on Roberts, MSNBC quotes Hillary,

I'm going to wait for the hearings and listen carefully to what's asked and answered...I really know only what I read in the paper.

and,

Then she laughed and said, "I don't have any inside information - do you have any?"

Hillary isn't stupid.

Outside the Beltway has Your Nation's Capital buzzing at Traffic Jam.

Right Thinking Girl reports Hillary Builds Moderate Credentials,

Speaking to the Democratic Leadership Council, the centrist group that helped her husband, Bill Clinton, secure the White House, the senator delivered a broad speech that touched on foreign policy, health care, education and fissures within her own party.

"It's high time for a ceasefire," Clinton said.

Posted by Charmaine at 10:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

The Women's Chair?
Courtesy Waco Kid!
Catching up with the Women's Chair meme. Apparently, Justice O'Connor subscribes to the notion. When the Washington Post caught up with her the day after the Roberts nomination, O'Connor replied: "He's good in every way, except he's not a woman."

Another policy-maker pushing this idea that O'Connor's seat should have been reserved for a woman was Colorado's Senator Ken Salazar who wrote this letter to the President:

Senator Ken Salazar(D, CO)

July 20, 2005

Dear President Bush:

. . . The fact you have not selected a distinguished woman in the mold of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is not a reason for disqualification. However, I want to express my disappointment that you have missed an opportunity to help create an America that includes women at all levels of our nation's government.

If your nominee to the United States Supreme Court is confirmed, the face of the United States Supreme Court, with nine justices, will have only one woman. And in an America that has struggled over her history to include women, I do not believe this is a healthy portrayal of the kind of America we should be building.

Twenty-four years ago, President Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor as the first woman justice of the United States Supreme Court. She served in that role with distinction. Justice O'Connor's appointment created a milestone in history that was the culmination of the work and struggles of men and women over centuries to ensure that women received fair and equal treatment in America. As we all well know, women were not granted even the right to vote in America until the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920.

You and I both have two daughters. The profound message we should be giving to them is that their gender creates no limitations for them to live up to their God-given potential. Yet, I fear that with the loss of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor from the United States Supreme Court, we are sending the opposite message.

Respectfully,

Ken Salazar
U.S. Senator

cc: Sen. Arlen Specter
Sen. Patrick Leahy

Well, I've got three daughters and I would prefer for them not to get the message that their acheivements are based on tokenism and quotas. . .

Via KLO at NRO Bench Memos. . .

Posted by Charmaine at 11:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Ana Marie Cox
Wonkette

Let's talk about the intersection of politics and humour. A gentleman sent an email this morning about yesterday's post, and unlike some who spew profanity, or insult my children, he asked a reasonable question:

The Wonkette piece about Roberts was obviously meant to be funny. Why did you take it to be serious?

And, he signed his name. Good on you, Gerald Barker.

I am interested, and surprised, that so many people have focused in their comments on Wonkette. Her post was an important piece of the story. But she wasn't really my central point.

Look: The picture I posted -- from the NYTimes; the Wonkette Peppermint Patty quote -- was originally from the NYTimes.

The Grey Lady. All the News That's Fit to Print. The Newspaper of Record.

Why did I take the gay "joke" seriously? Well, because Ann Althouse first caught my attention with her observation, about the NYTimes profile of Roberts, that:

I do think the NYT piece was subtly constructed to plant this idea [that Roberts is gay].

Well, was it? I'm sure we can all agree, even my visitors from Unfogged, that the NYTimes piece was not meant to be a joke in any way. Althouse made me wonder: Did the NYT intend to telegraph the idea that Roberts is gay with the picture montage and the Peppermint Patty nugget?

Live around hardball politics long enough. . .and one wonders.

Here's Roberts, a guy at the pinnacle of his career, reaching a height few ever attain, and our friends on the Left climb into the Way Back Machine to resurrect his role in a play in a high school drama production? I played the Easter Bunny in first grade. . . is that relevant to my life now? What's the point? Furthermore, in the NYTimes photo montage, not a single woman appears. Not his wife; not his three sisters.

The Wonkette quote seems to have distracted most people from this question raised about the NYTimes. However, one anonymous commenter did observe:

I've seen these subtle NY Times photo arrangements before -- it's a game they like to play. They once had five photos whose orchestrated point were that Orlando is a Mickey Mouse town. It was really quite funny.

What the NY Times is doing now, in a supposed news report, is **simply throwing stuff** at Roberts. The point is -- whatever negativity comes of it.

This is precisely the point. The NYTimes piece made me start wondering. . . add Wonkette doing her snarky little thing political analysis . . . add the Manhattan Offender riff on the Wikipedia entry . . . add comments on several other left-wing blogs that I didn't cite. . .

But I don't mean to completely write off Wonkette as backstory for the NYTimes piece. Let me restate: I know Wonkette is supposed to be funny. Right, right, I get it already.

Please. Wonkette's brand of comedy is hardly higher-order humour. Not hard to "get."

The real issue is: Does the fact that she's "joking" mean I can't criticize her? As Andy notes below, "we can say anything we want as long as we claim it's a joke?"

Let's clear something up. As Norm in the comments notes: "Wonkette is seriously humorous." Wonkette's schtick may be to make sexual jokes . . . but it's in the context of politics. The top post on her site today is on Social Security. A real knee-slapper.

This is a critical point. Over at Corante -- a business blog that I really like -- they weighed in on this story with "Anatomy of a Rumor" and they include as one point that:

The story is leveled - details essential for understanding (such as the fact that Wonkette is a humorist) are removed.

Wonkette Political
Blog Award

Since when is Wonkette a "humorist?" She's no Dave Barry. And she's no Scrappleface, either. "Wonkette", as in "policy wonk." Check out her Bloggie award for "best political blog." Go to IMAO for humor.

Spare me the "it's just a joke" defense. I took her joke seriously because humour is a weapon in hardball politics. Serious people take it seriously. [And she ranks 12th in blog traffic, averaging 59,967 hits a day. (Ann Althouse is #60 and averages 7773 visits per day.)]

Having said all of that, I haven't even addressed the substance of the "joke." I'll leave that for commenter Giacomo. I thought his pithy summary was brilliant: "If it's serious it's sad. If it's a joke it's hypocritical. You pick."

And finally. It turns out some of you are a whole lot funnier than Wonkette. You want funny? This is funny:

Patch asked: "Plaid pants??? May I see the part of the Constitution that mentions anything about clothing styles."

David replied: I think it is in the Declaration of Independence, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of plaid pants". And who can forget the Boston Plaid Pants Party. And Patrick Henry's stirring "No Plaid Pants without representation" speech before the Virginia House of Burgess.

Good one, guys.

* * *

Visit Smash and commenters at Indepundit.

Read Daleen's Place Ye Shall know the extremist by the Necco wafer clothing ....

Go play in Mamamontezz's Mental Rumpus Room and get more reactions.

More good reads at My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Open Weekend

Kerfuffles has more (better!) humor at What Makes Jackie Dance?

Was adorable little Dancin' Jackie another Karl Rove sly trick?...Perhaps it was simply a "dance of joy" at seeing his father selected for the highest court in the land. Needless to say, that explanation carries little weight with the Leftists. The Moonbats, in attempts to counteract the kid's charm which they fear may rub off onto his father, Judge John Roberts, have been busy with their Operation Looney Research. They immediately proffered a number of explanations for Dancin' Jack's performance, some of which are unbelievably despicable...

Kerfuffles goes on to quote a Daily Kos commenter about Judge Roberts,

"He's probably gay. Of course, this is how ridiculous rumors get started, but extreme conservatives seem to have a lot of homosexual children... ."

Report to Mudville Gazette on Open Post and be sure to check out the giant Camel Spiders from Doc in a Box.

Linked on Outside the Beltway at Traffic Jam and be sure to visit The American Princess who has spent a number of years in the fashion business,

There are people who know very little about fashion-that-flatters, and style-with-chic, outside of what their high-level, Fashion Week, NYU amateur-designer friends, who spend wekends in the hamptons, prefer thong-showing jeans, worship prolific junk-mongers and half naked androgenous models with post-modern makeup to the timeless style of Christain Dior and CoCo Chanel, understand about the current trends. My inclination is that Robin Givhan, of the Washington Post style department is one of those people.

Posted by Charmaine at 12:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (30) | TrackBacks (5)

John Roberts
Circa 1972ish
La Lumiere High School

Just a caution for my male readers: if there are any extant photos of you from the '70's in plaid pants, better get rid of them now. And it's not just the evidence of questionable fashion sense. Apparently now that's the goods on being gay.

Call it the Mary Cheney Strategy. Call it desperation. Some on the Left have started a "maybe he's gay" whisper campaign against John Roberts.

It started with Manhattan Offender in a post yesterday asking "How Gay is This Guy?" and then he quoted Wikipedia's entry for Judge Roberts. He zeroed in on some really damning evidence from Roberts' youthful past: the all-male boarding school, studying French and Latin (gasp!), being a wrestler and, oh the horror, participating in choir and drama.

So, it was only one silly post. Today, however, Wonkette picked up the ball and ran with it:

We're not making any conclusions here -- we wouldn't want to comment on an ongoing investigation -- we're just laying out the facts: He is a graduate of an all-boys Catholic school where, as a member of the wrestling team, he regularly grappled with other sweaty, repressed boys. That is when he wasn't the drama club playing Peppermint Patty, for God's sake.

What's that about Peppermint Patty?!? Yes, well, that's where the story starts to get interesting. That's a reference to a point raised in today's New York Times profile of Roberts, "Court Nominee's Life Is Rooted in Faith and Respect for Law," written by Todd Purdum, Jodi Wilgoren and Pam Belluck. In the midst of a very lengthy profile, Purdum, et.al. just throw in the little factoid that Roberts' yearbook records that "he played Peppermint Patty in the production of 'You're A Good Man, Charlie Brown.'"

Did I mention that this was when he was in high school?

So maybe that snarky little bit is just there for a little color? Ann Althouse has picked up the story and she thinks otherwise:

I do think the NYT piece was subtly constructed to plant this idea. Just look at the series of photographs they chose: young John in plaid pants, young John with his boys' school pals, young John in a wrestling suit with his fellow wrestlers, John with footballers, and -- the final pic -- John smiling in an all-male wedding photograph.

I think she might have a point.

Of course it is the height of hypocrisy for the (allegedly) pro-tolerance crowd to start questioning someone's sexual preference. It's a strange and twisted tactic for those who are allied with the gay rights movement to try to make an issue out of someone supposedly being gay.

Who cares?

Well, that's just the point: they think we do. They think that they can undermine support for someone among conservatives if they can dredge up some sort of homosexual connection -- or, in this case, just the manufactured whiff of a question.

If it weren't so cruel and small, it would be funny. (It's not just the plaid pants. Some of the commenters on these other sites have been questioning the Roberts' marriage, and even referencing their adopted children. That's just beyond the pale.)

The Left didn't learn their lesson when they tried this with Mary Cheney and it backfired. John Roberts may have played Peppermint Patty back in the day, but here and NOW, the Left is playing Lucy with the football . . .

***

UPDATE: Follow-up posts on this topic are at
Hardball Politics . . . and Humour, and at
Plaidgate

* * *

Althouse via Instapundit.

Puppy Nomination at American Daily. Thanks to vector Tom McMahon.

WILLism says wise pick. Salute to Mudville Gazette's Open Post.

Don't mess with Karl Rove says Evangelical Outpost.

Wonkette gets it good critiqued over on Ace of Spades HQ.

The Indepundit says lack of paper trail not a confirmation problem.

John Cole at Balloon Juice has the other hot button: abortion.

Thank you to Blogs for Bush for alerting us to JudgeRoberts.com.

Jeff Jarvis at BuzzMachine calls this the Unstory.

Captain's Quarters has more on the fashion show at Let Me Revise -- Attack The Wife And The Kids.

FaithMouse has Gaybear and the true tolerant take.

Charlotte's Allen and Hays from IWF write on the (proper) attire .

Posted by Charmaine at 11:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (91) | TrackBacks (50)

White House photo
by Eric Draper

This has been a great day for those of us who are accused of being idealists.

The President did what he promised to do.

He nominated a man who appears to take the Constitution seriously. And he didn't cave in to gender politics. He didn't make the O'Connor vacancy into the "women's chair."

There are some conservatives today who are raising doubts. Ann Coulter in her reliably no-holds-barred way wonders if Roberts will be another Souter:

Finally, let's ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That's just unnatural.

. . .If a smart and accomplished person goes this long without expressing an opinion, they'd better be pursuing the Miss America title.

And Fred Barnes thinks that Roberts is a "safe pick" but that he won't vote to overturn Roe v. Wade:

But [social conservatives] dream of the day when there are five votes on the court to reverse the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion. Now there are only three. Is Roberts likely to join a anti-Roe bloc on the court? Probably not.

Those criticisms, particularly Fred's, give me pause. But here is John Hinderaker's response to Ann's article:

Ann is just wrong about this one. Frankly, it's hard to believe she's serious. Calling John Roberts a "stealth" candidate is ridiculous; he has been on everyone's short list of preferred conservatives, along with Michael Luttig and Michael McConnell, for a long time. When David Souter was nominated, we--and conservatives everywhere--said, "David who?" When Roberts was nominated, we broke out the bubbly. Ann occasionally goes a bit overboard, but I can't remember a time when she has been this totally misguided, and, as I said, I have a hard time believing she's serious. Maybe, as Roger Simon suggests, it's triangulation.

And, I like the fact that Roberts' wife is legal counsel for Feminists for Life, and used to be Executive Vice President of their Board. Good group.

Of course we really don't know for sure. But people who know him are saying that he won't "grow in office" as has Anthony Kennedy, and so many others who get seduced by the Washington power culture. John Roberts appears to be a great jurist and a really good person. The latter an even more important point in my book.

Let me give the last word to Bill Kristol. Okay, I admit: partly because he said some awfully nice things about me in his column today -- thank you, Bill -- but in truth, because I agree with him. With this nominee, the President showed integrity and a political courage rarely seen in this town:

By simply going for the best person, by not worrying about walking out to the podium last night accompanied by a white male, Bush did something important and courageous. He showed that he knows that on really significant matters, one has to ignore political correctness and political pandering, and even political convenience. For this lesson, as well as for an intellectually impressive and politically sound choice, Bush deserves a lot of credit.

* * *

Greyhawk of Mudville gives us an update on African politics and Open Post . . .

Posted by Charmaine at 12:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

I've got a piece up, "The Women's Chair," over at NRO today about the Supreme Court nomination. So welcome NRO readers.

The talk surrounding the Supreme Court over the weekend centered on the possibility of a female nominee. But my argument is that the President shouldn't choose a woman:

But as a woman, with a vested interest in the advancement of women writ large, my counsel for the President is somewhat different:

"Mr. President, please nominate a man for the seat Justice O'Connor is vacating."

I understand the political realities behind the make-it-a-qualified-woman recommendations. The theory is that a woman would be easier to get through the coming confirmation-cum-political Armageddon we now face. That might be true. Or, it might not.

But that way lies an underappreciated constitutional danger and a hidden hypocrisy: While the Right justly decries the Court's recent transformation into a quasi-legislative body, they have conceded too easily as identity politics turns the Court into another vehicle for "representation" instead of constitutional interpretation.

We'll know soon: the President is scheduled to announce his choice tonight at 9:00. Washington has been abuzz all day today with the rumor that he had chosen Judge Edith Clement. However, ABC is now reporting that Clement got a call from the White House today telling her that she is not the nominee.

Read the rest over at NRO and let me know what you think. . .

Much as I would love to see some of the women who have been suggested seated on the bench, I do hope for the greater good that this means the President isn't going to go for filling "the women's chair." The really brilliant move would be to put a man in this time -- to demonstrate true gender-blindess -- and then put a terrific woman in next time, or, even better . . . as Chief Justice.

Wouldn't NOW just have a fit?

Continue reading "The Women's Chair on the Supreme Court: Fill it with a Man" »

Posted by Charmaine at 05:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (4)