Posted on 08/04/2005 7:24:32 AM PDT by conserv13
The problem is the term "sexual orientation". Why shouldn't people be able to discriminate against a behavior that to them may be reprehensible. The problem is that sexual orientation is not equivalent to race and should not be a "protected class" and be included in discrimination law.
"Someone needs to slip her a donut or something."
This and your other comments on this thread show just how childish you are.
Of course a glimpse of your "home page" does as well.
Maybe you should grow up a little.
Please keep in mind lawyers are advocates who don't necessarily believe the same way as their clients and often take cases they might not rule in favor of if they were on the bench deciding them.
Whatever. The bottom line is that this case tells us nothing about Roberts' views on gay rights issues just like the fact he argued against Roe for the Reagan/Bush administration tells us nothing about his actual views on that subject either.
Please. This was voluntary work Roberts chose to do.
He was arguing *for* the side against which Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas *dissented*.
Also, I don't always agree with the President. For example, placing tariffs on steel in his first term was disgraceful IMHO.
However, in time of war, and at a time when the man is facing unrelenting bitter partisan hostility from the 'Rats, the very last thing we want or need are a bunch of ankle-biters that take any news item, commentary or rumor and use it as an excuse to bash him.
As far as I am concerned, the real RINOS are people that don't loyally support Republicans in general. If there are so many Republicans, including the President, that one finds repugnant and not conservative enough, then it is fair to say that the Republican Party isn't conservative enough. The FACT is that the Republican Party devoid of everyone not 100% conservative wouldn't elect enough members of Congress to prevent the 'Rats from obtaining a 2/3 majority in both Houses.
But it's enough of an excuse for the Bush-haters to come out like flies at a summer picnic.
lol
Baloney! Protected status is a special right not a fundamental right. Claims of discrimination are based upon protected status, which is a statutory right and not a constitutional right. Nowhere in the constitution is there any guarantee of non-discrimination, especially as it relates to behavior. The only prohibition against discrimination is in regard to voting and then only in regard to race, color, or previous condition of servitude
That statute says nothing more than that the government cannot give homosexual men any more rights than it gives white anglo-saxon protestant males who are between the ages of 18 and 45. IOW, a homosexual cannot use his or her deviant BEHAVIOR as the basis of a discrimination claim.
Adultery and polygamy and incest are all legitimate reasons to deny someone a job as they are a reflection on their moral character. This may not be politically correct, but IMO and historically homosexual behavior is a reflection on the character of the person engaging in that behavior. It is not something they MUST do, it is a behavior that they voluntarily and with knowledge of the cosequences engage in.
By your reasoning the Military is in violation of the US Constitution by not allowing admitted practicing homosexuals into the service.
Again jude, did you think this way before you entered law school, or is this something that you picked up along the way?
Apparently so.
Depends on the firm, depends on its clients, depends on its practice areas etc. Especially in DC, you have firms with different political leanings.
Absolutely. It would have been simple professional courtesy to give a few pointers.
Thought you might find this thread interesting.
I agree with you totally.
But what does IMO and IOW mean?
Based on this, I hope the Dems DO Bork this guy.
Actually I don't. In fact I don't think it is at all fair to judge an attorney by his client. As an Attorney I am often asked to write petitions or argue positions that I do not necessarily agree with. (In fact I'm in the process of doing that right now).
In fact sometimes my client's positions are inopposite of my own, but I'm not hired to represent myself, I'm hired to represent my clients.
In this case it appears quite likely that Roberts was asked to review some of the work done by other memebers of his firm and he did it and made suggestions on how to best represent "the client" in court.
Frankly I really don't care if the nominee is a homosexual abortionist as long as he is a strict constructionist and more committed to the actual words of the constitution than he is to his own agenda.
Me too, I usually agree with her on almost everything, and she knows how to dig deep into subjects no one else will dare.
IOW = In other words and IMO = In My opinion.
FWIW you many need to follow the link to figure out what FWIW means.
What you say about DC firms is true. Hogan and Hartson historically has played both sides of the aisle in its lobbying and political practice, although my impression is it has more dems than pubbies. In terms of the personal politics of the lawyers, my impression is most lean left as most big firm lawyers do.
And c'mon, was Souter ever a member of the Federalist Society??
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.