This thread is really making me sick to my stomach...What we will embrace to make a point
Posted on 08/04/2005 7:37:34 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
"Walter A. Smith, then head of the pro bono department at Roberts’ law firm, Hogan & Hartson, asked for Roberts’ help on the case and he agreed immediately. "It’s illustrative of his open-mindedness, his fair-mindedness,” said Smith. "He did a brilliant job.”
-Roberts did not select the case.
-Roberts' firm performed the pro bono work
-Roberts assistance was requested by the head of the dept of the firm.
Being put in that position may have been difficult if he is anti-gay, and not so difficult if he is for gay rights.
He may have felt he needed to accomodate his firm in spite of his personal feelings. He wasn't given a choice which side of the case he wanted to work on.
Or, he secretly believes in gay rights and felt great satisfaction in helping their cause.
I do not think either conclusion may be drawn based on what we know about it right now.
Well, the Clintons only had one child, which may have been legitimize a marriage of convenience, good cover for her while he's allowed to play the field.
As for Condi, there never seems to have been any hints of a boyfriend in her past or present, so I guess she's asexual or gay. She didn't have to have kids, but can you think of any busy, career-orientated men who have never married and not had a string of girlfiends? Other than priests and fags it won't be a long list.
nice post. I almost agree with you. Very nice post.
"I almost agree with you."
Thank you. I am reminded of Agrippa's 'almost persuaded'. :)
If I might be so bold to ask, what parts do you 'almost agree with'? You may FReep mail you reply if you wish to keep it out of the main discussion.
You are complaining before the door shuts in your face, I am not aware of Roberts being in a vulnerable position. I lost access to my ISP last night and only regained it a little while ago, long enough to find a story contradicting this. Now they're kissing the asses of each side. Liberals are so far off they are making themselves the story.
If he overturns Roe Vs. Wade but upholds gay marriage, wouldn't God sing his praises? Let me see....dead babies....happy gay people....murdered innocent children...men and men marrying...millions of young mothers who are pressured into killing their own children...lesbians with matching rings...
Now, you have to admit...that's a lot of elipses.
He may have felt he needed to accomodate his firm in spite of his personal feelings. He wasn't given a choice which side of the case he wanted to work on.
The liberals have thus far been all over the board attempting to condemn Roberts for cases argued. Regardless, he has represented political aspects favored by each party, yet always under constitutional designation.
Why would LAT have considered this story if they were not convinced the right did not hate gays? Judges don’t decide ideological issues which is the core factor in liberal rejection of Bush nominees.
"Why would LAT have considered this story if they were not convinced the right did not hate gays?"
To plant a seed of doubt in an otherwise qualified candidate? to take a shot at stirring the pot?
Who knows. While his ideological foundations are not well-known (aside from his work history) it is clear (to me) that he is professionally and intellectually qualified for the position.
Makes more sense than doing it after the fact.
I lost access to my ISP last night and only regained it a little while ago, long enough to find a story contradicting this.
Do you plan on posting it any time soon, or am I supposed to take your word for it?
How about this: To make Roberts more palatable to liberals, because the LAT likes Roberts. See #171.
Interesting in that yesterday they were playing him against the right and today they are doing the same with him against the left. We have arrived at the point where the liberals are so far off they are making themselves the story
This thread is really making me sick to my stomach...What we will embrace to make a point
Do you honestly think a business like that would be able to "make it" today?
People aren't as racist as you like to think.
Also, the social issue in this case is homosexuality, not race.
Agreed. That was my point. People here are embracing Jim Crow to make a point about an anti gay case. Re-read the line I quoted.
I apologize for any misunderstanding.
And I suppose Roberts made legal history when he represented a client he didn't personally agree with.
That's a very interesting point, Tumbleweed.
Why do you believe liberals oppose judges who refuse to decide ideological issues
The LAT has just undergone a change in their editorial staff, and they are currently in transition, so i dont have a track record for accurately assessing their motives.
I doubt they are trying to make Roberts more palatable out of the goodness of their hearts, but one never knows, does one?
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.