Apparently, any questioning of the nomination of John Roberts to the United States Supreme Court is off limits to conservatives. Only liberals can ask questions. Among broad, pointless accusations that I am “simply wrong” on John Roberts, conservatives are surprisingly short on any details of how I am wrong. Are they withholding double-super-secret information?. Despite the “I’m right your wrong, and no I don’t have any proof I am right so why would you ask me?” scenario not working out so well during the Souter days, conservatives are certain their predictions will be right this time.

The nomination of Justice Souter, who was described as a “strong Yankee conservative” in 1990, is eerily similar to the nomination of John Roberts just one week ago. And these are similarities to important to merely brush aside. This Justice is someone who could be on the highest court in the land for the next three decades. This is arguably bigger than the Presidency.

So, why do I worry? Immediately following his nomination tot eh Supreme Court, Souter was described, multiple times, as a “blank slate,” with a “limited paper trail,” who would be “hard for liberals to attack.” Sound familiar? Don’t worry, there is more.

As the Attorney General of New Hampshire, the “Republican” Souter often fought on the behalf of the conservative Republican Governor’s conservative principles. Among other things, he argued in favor of allowing the flag to be flown at half-staff on Good Friday in order to commemorate the death of Christ. He had “put his personal views on hold” at the request of his “conservative-Republican” co-workers. He also vigorously pursued criminal charges against “environmentalist activists” at the insistence of the Republican administration. Meanwhile, that Roberts simply worked for both the Reagan and Bush administration and argued cases on their behalf is proof enough of his conservatism for most conservatives.

In 1990, the President of the liberal National Organization for Women, Molly Yard, stated: “To George Bush and others who would like us to think David Souter is a ‘blank slate’ NOW asks ‘Who are you kidding?’” She then described Souter as “almost Neanderthal” and then quickly announced the time and place of the next “Stop Souter” rally. Eleanor Smeal, president of the Fund for the Feminist Majority stated Souter would be “the fifth vote against legalized abortion” and called him a “devastating threat.”

Pro-life groups vigorously defended him against these attacks. USA Today ran an article titled “Abortion foes give Souter strong backing.” The National Right to Life Committee said that they were “pleased that President Bush has nominated a justice who will interpret the Constitution according to its text and who will not legislate from the bench.” Conservative activist Beverly LaHaye of Concerned Women of America also defended Souter against the Abortionists and Feminists.

Souter was said by liberals to be the one to “push the court solidly to the right on explosive social issues such as abortion, preferential hiring of blacks and other minorities, death sentences, and flag burning.” A writer for the liberal Boston Globe proved that Souter was a conservative simply by “the company he keeps.” He then went on to note his work in conservative Republican administrations and his many conservative allies and friends. He was, simply, a “50-year old man without a paper trail.”  

John Roberts is likewise a “50-year old man without a paper-trail.” The attacks on Souter by pro-abortion and feminist groups and the reactionary defense by pro-life and conservative women’s groups are no different today than they were 15 years ago against that other “very conservative” nominee. The most “proof” that Roberts is pro-life is in the fact that his wife is pro-life. Oh, and the he is a “devout Catholic.” Souter doesn’t have a wife, but at the time he was also described as being “deeply religious” and a “man of heavy faith.”

Last week, I didn’t say Roberts was “wrong for the court.” I said I just don’t know if he is right for the court. Conservatives insist he is. Liberals insist he isn’t. There is little to suggest anything either way. I’ve heard him vigorously defended by the right and simultaneously attacked by the liberal-special interest groups. They were going to do that anyway. It’s called “fund-raising.” It’s practically 1990 all over again, though this time we have to cross our fingers that this “blank slate” with “no paper trail” who is a  “stealth nominee” turns out better than the last one. And looking back, we arguably knew more about Souter then than we know about Roberts now.