Coulter Warns of Supreme Roulette

Notable excerpts from Coulter's past several columns:

We had a pretty good idea what kind of justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas were going to be. Scalia had spoken at the very first symposium of the Federalist Society as a young law professor — before it became a felony to do so — and served as faculty adviser to the group. (By contrast, Roberts is running from the Federalist Society like a 9-year-old boy running from Neverland Ranch.)

Before becoming a judge, Thomas had spent 10 years on the editorial advisory board of the Lincoln Review, a black conservative publication that ran articles comparing abortion to murder. He had given a speech praising an article by Lewis Lehrman calling abortion a "holocaust" that should be outlawed without exception. (There were even rumors, never proven, that during his law studies Thomas had actually read the Constitution.)

That's the sort of nominee we were hoping for! This wasn't a paper trail; it was more like a paper superhighway.

Maybe Roberts will contravene the sordid history of "stealth nominees" and be the Scalia or Thomas that Bush promised us when he was asking for our votes. Or maybe he won't. The Supreme Court shouldn't be a game of Russian roulette.

Roberts would have been a fine candidate for a Senate in Democratic hands. But now we have 55 Republican seats in the Senate and the vice president to cast a deciding vote — and Son of Read-My-Lips gives us another ideological blind date.

Fifty-five seats means every single Democrat in the Senate could vote against a Republican Supreme Court nominee — highly unlikely considering some of those Democrats are up for election next year — along with John McCain, Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Lincoln Chafee. We would still win.