Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Roberts helped gay-rights activists win landmark ruling
Los Angeles Times ^ | August 4, 2005 | Richard A. Serrano

Posted on 08/04/2005 3:51:18 AM PDT by joeu

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. worked behind the scenes for a coalition of gay-rights activists, and his legal expertise helped them persuade the Supreme Court to issue a landmark 1996 ruling protecting people against discrimination because of their sexual orientation.

(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; johnroberts; romervevans; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

1 posted on 08/04/2005 3:51:19 AM PDT by joeu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: joeu

That should bring Ted Kennedy right on board.


2 posted on 08/04/2005 3:57:27 AM PDT by Past Your Eyes (Suffering fools reluctantly since 1947.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joeu
This is scary. It is especially troublesome that it was pro bono work and that he apparently volunteered to some extent his services.
3 posted on 08/04/2005 4:14:32 AM PDT by MBB1984
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joeu

wonderful


4 posted on 08/04/2005 4:22:26 AM PDT by wardaddy (Nuke their ass and take their gas......for my GMC K3500!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joeu

"Shannen Coffin, a Catholic friend of Roberts and a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Bush administration, predicted Roberts would “separate personal philosophy from legal philosophy. Being Catholic, I don’t think, affects him any more than if he’s Hindu."

Ann Coulter may be right on this guy.


5 posted on 08/04/2005 4:23:37 AM PDT by Varda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joeu

We are scr-wed once again BUMP!!


6 posted on 08/04/2005 4:27:43 AM PDT by conservativecorner (It's a cult of death and submission to fanatics Larry!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joeu

This is very disturbing news concerning a guy that is supposed to be a 'conservative'. Here we go again....


7 posted on 08/04/2005 4:40:33 AM PDT by M. Espinola ( Freedom is never free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bad company

Told ya!

[Little Wharvey Gal voice] He's a Souter!

J


8 posted on 08/04/2005 4:43:38 AM PDT by J. L. Chamberlain II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: M. Espinola
"This is very disturbing news concerning a guy that is supposed to be a 'conservative'. Here we go again...."

I would be much happier if he had not added his legal skills to this case..however as taken from the article the ability to deny a person housing based on sexual orientation is not a good policy to support..if "correct "that the case was one allowing this type of discrimination I am not concerned as in fairness it is consistent with other anti discrimination laws.

I oppose the radical gay agenda on most levels (marriage, adoption,expressing open sexual orientation in military, lack of laws controlling sexual behavior in relation to transmission of disease such as hiv and the right of organizations to restrict membership based on above) Housing is a basic human need and should be free to all who respect the property of a rental owner.

Lets hope Roberts is as conservative as we have been told.

I do not want another souter.
9 posted on 08/04/2005 5:00:40 AM PDT by ConsentofGoverned (A sucker is born every minute..what are the voters?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: joeu

This should make the whinning libs all run up to Roberts and kiss and hug him......


10 posted on 08/04/2005 5:05:25 AM PDT by HarleyLady27 (I have a ? for the libs: "Do they ever shut up on your planet?" "Grow your own dope, plant a lib")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
Get your knickers untwisted .....we will find out he did this pro-bono work for numerous people and groups.

So calm down and BREATHE!!!!

11 posted on 08/04/2005 5:18:11 AM PDT by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: J. L. Chamberlain II

He is not a Souter..show me one of his rulings that make you think that.


12 posted on 08/04/2005 5:19:04 AM PDT by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ConsentofGoverned

Looks to me that Roberts took the side of people who overturned the will of the people in a"statewide referendum". Sexual orientation is not a protected class of people except by judicial fiat.

U.S. Supreme Court
ROMER v. EVANS, ___ U.S. ___ (1996)

ROY ROMER, GOVERNOR OF COLORADO, ET AL. PETITIONERS v. RICHARD G. EVANS
ET AL.

Argued October 10, 1995
Decided May 20, 1996

After various Colorado municipalities passed ordinances banning discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing, employment, education, public accommodations, health and welfare services, and other transactions and activities, Colorado voters adopted by statewide referendum "Amendment 2" to the State Constitution, which precludes all legislative, executive, or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect the status of persons based on their "homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships." Respondents, who include aggrieved homosexuals and municipalities, commenced this litigation in state court against petitioner state parties to declare Amendment 2 invalid and enjoin its enforcement. "
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=U10179


13 posted on 08/04/2005 5:19:37 AM PDT by Varda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Varda
Ann Coulter may be right on this guy.

She is not right about this guy....just because he isn't a flamethrower doesn't mean he isn't qualified to sit on SCOTUS.

14 posted on 08/04/2005 5:20:53 AM PDT by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MBB1984
He will be confirmed. Your worst fears will be realized.
;-)
15 posted on 08/04/2005 5:28:23 AM PDT by verity (Big Dick Durbin is still a POS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dog

He may be qualified to sit on SCOTUS but so were Ginsberg and Souter.

I'm still undecided on this guy, perhaps you could tell me what he's done that makes you his advocate here.


16 posted on 08/04/2005 5:28:59 AM PDT by Varda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Varda

He has the full backing of the President....that is good enough for me.


17 posted on 08/04/2005 5:33:20 AM PDT by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Varda
"Looks to me that Roberts took the side of people who overturned the will of the people in a"statewide referendum". Sexual orientation is not a protected class of people except by judicial fiat."

from the RomervEvans:
It imposes a broad disability upon those persons alone, forbidding them, but no others, to seek specific legal protection from injuries caused by discrimination in a wide range of public and private transactions. Pp. 4-9.

(b) In order to reconcile the Fourteenth Amendment's promise that no person shall be denied equal protection with the practical reality that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, the Court has stated that it will uphold a law that neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class so long as the legislative classification bears a rational relation to some independent and legitimate legislative end. See, e.g., Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 319 -320. Amendment 2 fails, indeed defies, even this conventional inquiry. First, the amendment is at once too narrow and too broad, identifying persons by a single trait and then denying them the possibility of protection across the board. This disqualification of a class of persons from the right to obtain specific protection from the law is unprecedented and is itself a denial of equal protection in the most literal sense.

Seems our laws and courts should try to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority..I have mixed feelings on this issue ..the people voted on it but was the way the referendum written a wise one - may I even suggest it was set up to fail in court- as conservatives we must support private property rights but we must be smart also in not letting our opponents set us up with poorly designed referendums.??
18 posted on 08/04/2005 5:33:47 AM PDT by ConsentofGoverned (A sucker is born every minute..what are the voters?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ConsentofGoverned
"Housing is a basic human need and should be free to all who respect the property of a rental owner."

So you don't think a private property owner should be able to refuse to rent to a homosexual "couple".

I disagree.

Many communities designate their properties as "single-family" residences - which prohibits such a living arrangement (along with others).

This comes down to community standards. We do not need federal laws that open property owners to legal attacks for exercising their rights of property ownership and free association.

Applying the same logic, even pedophiles have the "basic human need" of a place to live. Well that doesn't mean it is my job to provide for their needs.
19 posted on 08/04/2005 5:49:25 AM PDT by unlearner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: unlearner

"Many communities designate their properties as "single-family" residences - which prohibits such a living arrangement (along with others)."

the above is OK with me..I am just saying why not use that law and apply it equally to all..seems it would restrict all who did not rent as a single family, a law applied to all is OK with me. we do not disagree..


20 posted on 08/04/2005 5:57:30 AM PDT by ConsentofGoverned (A sucker is born every minute..what are the voters?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Varda
perhaps you could tell me what he's done that makes you his advocate here.

Have you read the dozen or so other articles from his Reagan era work where he opposed bussing, Affirm. Action, Roe v Wade, or his later work where he opposed and ruled against the EPA, or where he took a restrictive view of the Commerce Clause, or his recent rulings where he upheld military tribunals for terrorists?

21 posted on 08/04/2005 6:01:23 AM PDT by nwrep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Dog

But Dog - why would a lawyer do pro-bono work for a group they should diametrically oppose? I mean, it's one thing to be on the sidelines and say "yeah, discrimination based on sexual orientation is wrong," but it's another thing to devote your time and energy pro-bono. Lawyers aren't exactly sitting around twiddling their thumbs.

The only hope is that he's refined his views over the past ten years and is more pro-family than this.


22 posted on 08/04/2005 6:02:04 AM PDT by Rutles4Ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Dog

Souter and Kennedy had full-backing, too. Blind loyalty to the presidency has kept the culture of death vibrant. See "Arlen Specter outrage dissipates in afterglow of election victory."


23 posted on 08/04/2005 6:04:12 AM PDT by Rutles4Ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Dog
just because he isn't a flamethrower doesn't mean he isn't qualified to sit on SCOTUS.

There are lots of liberal judges "qualified" to sit on SCOTUS. That's a pretty low bar to set given the historical opportunity to undo the abuses of the activist court.

24 posted on 08/04/2005 6:06:20 AM PDT by Rutles4Ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: joeu; Dog

The issue is whether Judge Roberts is a strict constructionist or not. The cited case doesn't tell us anything about that, one way or the other.

The confirmation hearings should tell us what we need to know, particularly when Senator Coburn is questioning. I would pay attention to that, rather than anything coming out in the media before then.


25 posted on 08/04/2005 6:15:39 AM PDT by savedbygrace ("No Monday morning quarterback has ever led a team to victory" GW Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MBB1984
This is scary. It is especially troublesome that it was pro bono work and that he apparently volunteered to some extent his services.

umm come on. don't believe everything you read, especially when it so provocatively spun.

26 posted on 08/04/2005 6:16:38 AM PDT by the invisib1e hand (In Honor of Terri Schiavo. *check my FReeppage for the link* Let it load and have the sound on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: joeu

So far we've been doing nothing but trying to read dry tea leaves and look at chicken entrails to determine what this individual will do if he's confirmed. Now we have a single solid piece of evidence, AND IT'S BAD. That an attorney takes a case for a paying client and argues it says little or nothing about whether the attorney agrees with the client's position--a Democrat plumber can just as well fix a Republican's toilet without becoming a Republican.

When its pro bono, it's very different. The attorney, Roberts in this case, is giving his time. When that time and skill are given to an ideological cause, as he did here, the only reasonable conclusion is he supports that cause. What's even more disturbing is that this case overturned a popular referendum, meaning that, contrary to some of the VERY SMALL indications he's given to the contrary, he could easily be another Souter or Stevens.

This also raises a serious issue about his integrity. The Senate questionnaire he received called on him to list all pro bono cases he'd been involved in. He failed to list this one. Those who believe in judicial tooth faeries can believe he did this unintentionally.

In short, we now have a Republican nominated candidate for the Supreme Court whose greatest judicial success was acting as a pro bono stealth lawyer for homosexual activists and winning an activist decision that overturned a popular referendum. Then, when asked about his work on pro bono cases, he lied to the Senate by not disclosing this work. As far as I'm concerned, this disqualifies him for the seat, both ideologically and ethically.


27 posted on 08/04/2005 6:19:46 AM PDT by libstripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libstripper
"Then, when asked about his work on pro bono cases, he lied to the Senate by not disclosing this work. As far as I'm concerned, this disqualifies him for the seat, both ideologically and ethically."

I too am not sure Roberts is a true conservative..but you seem to have hung him prior to any fair hearing on what really happened with his probono work in this case - if it is even true as reported- we all know the MSM never gets it wrong LOL.
28 posted on 08/04/2005 6:25:08 AM PDT by ConsentofGoverned (A sucker is born every minute..what are the voters?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ConsentofGoverned

If the referendum in question didn't deny the right of homosexuals to protection under the law as persons and as citizens (and I don't see how it could) than it only defined homosexuality as a distinction that wasn't accorded protection under the constitution of Colorado. This SCOTUS ruling placed homosesxuality in the same catagory of distinction as black and female.

Homosexuality is rightly viewed as a destructive behavior and the people of Colorado voted not to give this trait legal protection. Sometimes discrimination is a good thing.


29 posted on 08/04/2005 6:28:01 AM PDT by Varda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Varda

OK


30 posted on 08/04/2005 6:29:56 AM PDT by ConsentofGoverned (A sucker is born every minute..what are the voters?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ConsentofGoverned
Roberts did not mention his work on the gay-rights case in his 67-page response to a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire released Tuesday.

The committee asked for ''specific instances" in which he had performed pro bono work, how he had fulfilled those responsibilities, and the amount of time he had devoted to them.

This pretty well ices it. Even the MSM would have a hard time getting that wrong.

31 posted on 08/04/2005 6:30:48 AM PDT by libstripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

The lack of opposition on the left should send a chill down your spine.


32 posted on 08/04/2005 6:31:24 AM PDT by Rutles4Ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ConsentofGoverned
This issue is portrayed as somehow homosexuals are just minding their own business, and Christians are on a witch hunt, spying on them and discover their homosexuality. Then the mean Christians persecute these innocent homosexuals.

The reality is homosexual militants are waging war against Christian communities that say homosexuality is wrong. They want to create legal precedents so they can attack Christian communities through the law.

Once they have special legal status as a homosexual, they can flaunt it (which they do). Then when someone "discriminates", they can sue.

They want more than to just have a place to live. They want to evangelize their behavior. They want to be your children's teachers at school. They want to adopt children. They want their agenda to be promoted through public education of children.

If you don't like it, they have laws to go after you. In Canada, expressing opposition to homosexuality can cause major legal problems. It might even be considered "hate speech". This is what they want here.
33 posted on 08/04/2005 6:33:16 AM PDT by unlearner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ConsentofGoverned

"however as taken from the article the ability to deny a person housing based on sexual orientation is not a good policy to support"

Rubbish. That's an excellent policy to support. And even if a property owner doesn't support it himself, he should be free in this country to rent to whomever he feels like. Roberts should have been taking pro bono work to do things like scale back takings, to attempt to prove that rent control is unconstitutional, that sort of thing.

This is idiotic. Souter never did anything like that...and he probably benefitted from these sorts of laws.

At any rate...he is sort of saying that he was doing this because it was a client of the firm and he was obliged to help his partners. I can sort of see that point. But he could have politely declined to help his partner. I doubt his partner would help him on pro bono work for pro life charities, would he? Probably not. Pro bono can be the domain of the person working on it. Not everyone in a firm has to jump on board (although the firm does represent the clinet as a matter of ethics).


34 posted on 08/04/2005 6:37:06 AM PDT by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever

The other thing that's really disturbing is Roberts has been an active and popular member of the D. C. social scene for most of his career, one of the most corrupting things that can happen to a conservative.


35 posted on 08/04/2005 6:37:35 AM PDT by libstripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: joeu; All

duplicate:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1456604/posts?page=60

Plant story.


36 posted on 08/04/2005 6:39:27 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libstripper

That is different from what you earlier posted. The request was NOT to list ALL pro bono work but "specific instances." To an honest person your phrasing was deceptive if not dishonest. Put the rail, tar and feathers away.


37 posted on 08/04/2005 6:39:37 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: nwrep

I think pro bono work says more about his personal philosophy. It's a positive that he ruled the way he did against the EPA and about the Commerce Clause but I admit I'm more concerned with social issues and the right of the people to determine those.


38 posted on 08/04/2005 6:40:22 AM PDT by Varda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: joeu
The lawyer who asked for his help on the case, Walter A. Smith Jr., then-head of the pro bono department at Hogan & Hartson, said Roberts did not hesitate.

Hogan and Hartson? Hogan and Hartson?

Berger was at Hogan and Hartson. They have represented the DNC, Comunist China, Bill Clinton's Innagural Committee, John Huang...

Read about them here.

39 posted on 08/04/2005 6:41:40 AM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever

There is no ethics rule that says a lawyer must work over a morally objectionable case.

In fact it is just the opposite.

The other post does not have him doing work, only giving advice "of some kind".

For all we know his advice could have been, "down the hall to the right".


40 posted on 08/04/2005 6:42:10 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit

It also matters if he filed a Notice of Appearance as an official indication he was on the case.


41 posted on 08/04/2005 6:43:09 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign
The lawyer who asked for his help on the case, Walter A. Smith Jr., then-head of the pro bono department at Hogan & Hartson, said Roberts did not hesitate.

BTW, what kind of lawyer head a "pro bono department"?

42 posted on 08/04/2005 6:44:25 AM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Thanks for posting that. It occurred to me that this story might be bogus but it might not. If he didn't actually help overturn the Colorado referendum, his defenders will be hitting the conservative press soon.
43 posted on 08/04/2005 6:46:51 AM PDT by Varda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: unlearner

sad but very true ..the fight goes on ..but we must fight within the constitution and through our republic's systems to change both the minds and hearts of the secularists..sodomy is not a life style it is LUST..but we cannot trample our system because we are in the right on this issue..


44 posted on 08/04/2005 6:47:20 AM PDT by ConsentofGoverned (A sucker is born every minute..what are the voters?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever

Lack of opposition from the left? I don't think so. They're just getting warmed up.


45 posted on 08/04/2005 6:48:20 AM PDT by Trust but Verify (Get over yourselves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ConsentofGoverned

I'm a Roberts supporter but this is a little worrisome. The court's ruling in this case was horrendous, and could set the precedent for overturning all the gay "marriage" bans that have been enacted by state voters recently.

Several years ago, Colorado voters approved a state constitutional amendment barring the enactment of so-called gay rights laws in their state. The reason for this was that politicians kept passing (or trying to pass) these laws despite public opposition to them. We're seeing a similar thing in California right now where some politicians are trying to engineer gay "marriage" in that state even though voters passed a law banning it.

But in Colorado the voters had not yet acted, so they did so. They approved the amendment banning gay rights laws on a state referendum. By a 6-3 majority, joined in by Justices Kennedy & O'Connor, the court ruled that the amendment was unconstitutional. The reasoning was spurious, and could be used to ban just about any law or amendment the liberals don't like. They argued that an amendment to the state constitution banning gay rights ordinances deprived gays of "equal protection" since they couldn't pass such laws without first repealing the aforementioned amendment. So the presence of the amendment constituted an additional barrier for gays to overcome that, for example, supporters of a law banning discrimination against the elderly wouldn't face.

But that's a ridiculous argument. By definition a constitutional amendment is a barrier. Opponents of free speech, for instance, would have to repeal the first amendment before they could pass their desired laws. The 15th amendment bans racial discrimination in voting. Gender discrimination in voting wasn't banned until many years later via the 19th amendment. But that doesn't mean that in the meantime the 15th amendment was unconstitutional since it placed a barrier on those who would deny blacks the vote while not placing such a barrier on those who would deny women the vote.

The irony of all this is that judicial fiats, which this ruling was, impose barriers on the democratic process just as constitutional amendments do, only WITHOUT public participation in the process. Opponents of abortion, as an example, are denied the ability to pass a ban on abortion because of Roe vs. Wade. The same would be true if there was a legitimately ratified constitutional amendment banning anti-abortion laws, but at least that would have been enacted via legitimate processes.

The Romer vs. Evans case essentially gives the court carte blanche to void any state constitutional amendment they don't like on the grounds that the very presence of the amendment imposes a barrier on those who want to enact laws violating it. It's worrisome if Roberts was involved in this. I hope there's a good explanation.


46 posted on 08/04/2005 6:57:55 AM PDT by puroresu (Conservatism is an observation; Liberalism is an ideology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever
The lack of opposition on the left should send a chill down your spine.

well, actually it has been a feature of interest. Thanks for reminding me. I posted elsewhere about how odd it was that the left was falling in line behind him. I got caught up in the rest of my life and forgot. I'm not too worried -- I still don't believe the headlines as presented.

There seems to be campaign to hard sell this guy to the left, with the complicity of their leadership. I'm sure a deal was done somewhere -- probably Hillary given the white house or something.

47 posted on 08/04/2005 6:58:49 AM PDT by the invisib1e hand (In Honor of Terri Schiavo. *check my FReeppage for the link* Let it load and have the sound on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: puroresu
very good post- I guess thats why so many of us feel SCOTUS is the last stand against the destruction of the republic - but I am hopeful that SCOTUS itself is controlled by return to the original intent of the founding documents..marberry be damned.
48 posted on 08/04/2005 7:01:14 AM PDT by ConsentofGoverned (A sucker is born every minute..what are the voters?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit

Wasn't he just a wee tad disingenuous NOT to list one of the major pro bono cases he was involved in, a case that produced a major victory for the gay agenda, overturned a popular referendum, and where Rhenquist, Scalia, and Thomas all dissented? Shouldn't this cause all of us a bit of discomfiture with his candidacy??


49 posted on 08/04/2005 7:01:44 AM PDT by libstripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: joeu

Too early to say...

Many questions from both-sides-of-the-aisle

at the confirmation hearings will give a much better read


50 posted on 08/04/2005 8:30:13 AM PDT by calrepublic2005
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson