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

Skip to comments.

No On Roberts (Joseph Farah Slams Conservatives For Being Bamboozled By White House Alert)
World Net Daily.com ^ | 08/08/05 | Joseph Farah

Posted on 08/07/2005 10:20:55 PM PDT by goldstategop

I don't know who makes me sicker – President Bush or the "conservatives" who continue to back him and his sell-out choice for the U.S. Supreme Court.

The conservatives eagerly jumped in to throw their support to the unknown John Roberts as soon as the choice to replace Sandra Day O'Connor was announced.

On what basis? The guy was a blank slate – like David Souter and Anthony Kennedy before him.

Then, last week, the Los Angeles Times broke the story that Roberts had volunteered his services – pro bono – to help prepare a landmark homosexual activist case to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

He did his job well. But he didn't serve the public interest. And he certainly no longer sounds like the carefully crafted image of a jurist who believes in the Constitution and judicial restraint.

The 1996 Romer vs. Evans case produced what the homosexual activists considered, at the time, its most significant legal victory, paving the way for an even bigger one – Lawrence vs. Texas, the Supreme Court ruling that effectively overturned all laws prohibiting sodomy in the United States.

There was some immediate concern expressed by conservatives following the story. But after being assured by the White House that everything was all right, they quickly fell into line, quietly paving the way for what I predict will be a unanimous or near-unanimous confirmation vote in the U.S. Senate.

Some conservatives even suggested the story in the L.A. Times was designed to divide conservatives. If that isn't a case of blaming the messenger! No, the point of the L.A. Times story was to bring the Democrats on board – to reassure them that Roberts is definitely in the mold of Souter and Kennedy.

As disappointing as Bush has been as president, I really didn't expect him to nominate a constitutionalist to replace O'Connor.

But the vast majority of establishment conservative leaders have no idea how they are being manipulated.

It's really sad.

They simply buy into the White House talking points, which say Roberts was merely being a good soldier for his law firm.

Roberts was a partner in the firm. His job was not in jeopardy if he excused himself from the case on principled moral grounds. That would have been the honorable thing to do – either that, or resign from a law partnership that took such reprehensible clients.

Now that would be the kind of jurist I could support to serve on the Supreme Court for a lifetime appointment.

Walter A. Smith, the attorney in charge of pro bono work at Hogan & Hartson from 1993 to 1997, who worked with Roberts on the Romer case, said Roberts expressed no hesitation at taking the case. He jumped at the opportunity.

"Every good lawyer knows that if there is something in his client's cause that so personally offends you, morally, religiously, if it offends you that you think it would undermine your ability to do your duty as a lawyer, then you shouldn't take it on, and John wouldn't have," he said. "So at a minimum, he had no concerns that would rise to that level."

Keep in mind the intent and result of this case. It overturned a provision of the Colorado Constitution that blocked special rights for people based on their sexual proclivities.

Roberts did not have a moral problem with that. He did not have a moral problem with helping those activists win a major battle in the culture war. He did not have a moral problem with using the Supreme Court to interfere in the sovereign decisions of a sovereign people in a sovereign state. He did not have a moral problem coaching homosexual activists on how to play politics with the court.

This was not just an "intellectual exercise," as some have suggested. Roberts' actions had real impact on the future of our nation.

He ought to be ashamed of himself as a self-proclaimed Catholic. In some dioceses, he would be denied communion for his betrayal of his faith.

He ought to be denied a confirmation vote by the U.S. Senate. But I predict he will get every Republican vote and nearly all of the Democrat votes.

Sad. Tragic. Pathetic.


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: assininearticle; bamboozled; biasedlies; blatanthorsefeathers; constructionist; dnctalkingpoints; dramaqueens; farah; farahisright; farahsanass; farahsnoconservative; farahsonkoolaid; farahvotednader; fastone; goodforfarah; isthisaconservative; joescracked; joespathetic; johngroberts; johnroberts; josephfarah; moonbat; pissonfarah; presidentbush; rubbish; scotus; scotuslist; sheeple; stealthcandidate; wingnut; worldnetdaily; worthlessjunk
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 341-346 next last
To: Congressman Billybob

What are you doing up so late?


101 posted on 08/07/2005 11:36:40 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: AliVeritas

Are you mocking me? :-)


102 posted on 08/07/2005 11:37:12 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative
Stop mentioning facts my fellow freeper and interrupt some people Bash Bush orgy. In fact Roberts worked on this "Homosexual case" for less than 6.5 hours according to records, but some freepers want to make him as the most important factor in the plaintiff winning this case.

And how about his much more time he worked on helping pro-life "Operation Rescue" defending it against abortion groups. This fact should not be mentioned either.

103 posted on 08/07/2005 11:37:35 PM PDT by jveritas (The left cannot win a national election ever again and never will the Buchananites and 3rd parties)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RATkiller

You can say all you want negative about Bush, just back it up with facts/truth.

Otherwise be prepared to take the heat.

Not that complicated really.


104 posted on 08/07/2005 11:37:56 PM PDT by DB (©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

The 14th amendment doesn't apply to private citizens. I'm not in violation of that amendment if I don't rent to a gay couple.


105 posted on 08/07/2005 11:41:58 PM PDT by puroresu (Conservatism is an observation; Liberalism is an ideology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

So, do you remember whether or not you liked the Souter nomination?
__________________________________________________________

As New Hampshire attorney general in 1977, Souter opposed the repeal of an 1848 state law that made abortion a crime even though Roe v. Wade had made it irrelevant, predicting that if the law were repealed, New Hampshire "would become the abortion mill of the United States."

At this point the only people more opposed to abortion than Souter were still in vitro.

He filed a brief arguing that the state should not have to pay for poor women to have abortions – or, as the brief called it, "the killing of unborn children" and the "destruction of fetuses."

Also as state attorney general, Souter defended the governor's practice of lowering the flag to half-staff on Good Friday, arguing that "lowering of the flag to commemorate the death of Christ no more establishes a religious position on the part of the state or promotes a religion than the lowering of the flag for the death of Hubert Humphrey promotes the cause of the Democratic Party in New Hampshire."

Souter vowed in a newspaper interview to "do everything we can to uphold the law" allowing public school children to recite the Lord's Prayer every day.

As a justice on the New Hampshire Supreme Court, Souter dismissively referred to abortion as something "necessarily permitted under Roe v. Wade" – not exactly the "fundamental right" he seems to think it is now.

In a private speech – not a brief on behalf of a client – Souter attacked affirmative action, calling it "affirmative discrimination."

Souter openly proclaimed his support for the "original intent" in interpreting the Constitution.
_______________________________________________________


106 posted on 08/07/2005 11:44:43 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Are you under the impression that conservatives are in favor of sanctioned discrimination against a certain class of people?
I am. Visit any WOsD thread to receive your verification. Sanctioned discrimination abounds against those perceived to be "druggies".
107 posted on 08/07/2005 11:50:31 PM PDT by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: puroresu

It applies to a CLASS of people.


108 posted on 08/07/2005 11:50:50 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Read the 14th Amendment lately?

Being the helpful fellow that I am, below is the 14th Amendment. Now, please direct me to the part that says that a private citizen is not allowed to say to a job applicant, "I don't want to hire a gay person." Thanks. (P.S. You smoking something tonight?)

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

109 posted on 08/07/2005 11:51:33 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Which conservative "branch" would that be?


110 posted on 08/07/2005 11:52:08 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

BTW, what is a 'neat' Protestant? :-)


111 posted on 08/07/2005 11:54:21 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
The Constituation protects everyone regardless of their race, gender, or religion. The homosexuals should not be discriminated against in housing, jobs, or education, and I think you agree on this because if you do not that it is not worth debating you. Now, are we against the "Homosexual agenda" of gay marriage or imposing their views on us, we are absolutely against it and the Constitution is on our side on this one.
112 posted on 08/07/2005 11:54:36 PM PDT by jveritas (The left cannot win a national election ever again and never will the Buchananites and 3rd parties)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

####It applies to a CLASS of people#####


Here's a question for you. Why didn't the 14th Amendment give women the vote? If the 14th Amendment bans "discrimination" against classes of people, why did it take another amendment (the 19th) over sixty years later to provide for a constitutional guarantee of female suffrage?


113 posted on 08/07/2005 11:55:37 PM PDT by puroresu (Conservatism is an observation; Liberalism is an ideology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard; ThePythonicCow
It was a law designed to discriminate against gays as a CLASS of people.

I refer you to this post:

It denied them all legal means to seek any protections under the law. The 14th Ammendment prohibits singling out a specific class of people, without some independent and legitimate legislative end, for such forfeiture of legal protections.

56 posted on 08/08/2005 1:59:07 AM EDT by ThePythonicCow (To err is human; to moo is bovine.)

114 posted on 08/07/2005 11:55:41 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: puroresu
The majority ruling in Romer was based on political correctness, not on the Constitution.

Correct. It proceeded from emotion, New Age-style feelings, not reason and good sense.

115 posted on 08/07/2005 11:55:49 PM PDT by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

That is more strait-laced than a 'messy' Protestant.


116 posted on 08/07/2005 11:56:07 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (No wonder the Southern Baptist Church threw Greer out: Only one god per church! [Ann Coulter])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Which conservative "branch" would that be?
I'm not quite sure exactly what you're asking. Could you rephrase your question?
117 posted on 08/07/2005 11:58:15 PM PDT by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

Once again you prove you are all soft in the head. It was a ban on "special rights" laws. Such a thing might be worth playing violins over if it was about, say, black people and a few decades ago. Why don't you take a look at the demographics of the homo population? Their affluence puts the mere plebes to shame.


118 posted on 08/07/2005 11:58:34 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (No wonder the Southern Baptist Church threw Greer out: Only one god per church! [Ann Coulter])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
You nailed it. Fortunately these "phony conservatives" are a very tiny minority in the "real Conservative Republican" movement.
119 posted on 08/07/2005 11:58:40 PM PDT by jveritas (The left cannot win a national election ever again and never will the Buchananites and 3rd parties)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: puroresu

You make too much sense to be listened to.


120 posted on 08/07/2005 11:59:18 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (No wonder the Southern Baptist Church threw Greer out: Only one god per church! [Ann Coulter])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 341-346 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