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.
Really? Now we are all enlightenedd by this latest gem from you (extreme sarcasm). So you are telling me that the Constitution allows a White landlord from not renting to a Black person just because he or she is Black?
I'll ask you the same question I asked Howlin earlier.
If the 14th Amendment prohibits "discrimination" against classes of people, why didn't it give women the vote? Why did it take another amendment (the 19th) more than sixty years after the 14th was adopted to end discrimination against women in voting? And that's GOVERNMENT discrimination, not private.
And look how many have taken the bait and "fished" with it.
I think his brain got ahead of his common sense. Even if it was doing something as mundane as mimicking Scalia.
And I repeat....the Constitution absolutely, positively, definitely allows a private landlord to refuse to rent to blacks.
And, of course, the Boy Scouts ought not be required to hire and retain scoutmasters who have a sexual preference for males.
Far from being sacrosanct, sexual deviancy ought to be a basis for discrmination in a great many hiring decisions.
This thread is getting kind of ridiculous, but you hit the nail on the head with your post #177
Well, which part of the conservative party is discriminating against anybody who defends the druggies?
What I mean is that I don't know any who do -- so what am I missing?
Just because you don't recognize or know any who do doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Perhaps you should get out more or associate with different folks.
You're missing a lot and seem unaware of it.
This is similar to the issue of slavery, the Constitution never allowed slavery and it took 80 years after writing the Constitution to totally abolish it and make it unconstitutional.
Actually I don't think anyone should be forced to to rent or provide any other service with their private property without their consent.
If they want to discriminate against people they should suffer economic consequences, not legal ones.
If you want to fornicate on someone else's private property they have every right to tell you to leave. It is their property after all.
Private property is sacred. Unfortunately government has lost its way regarding private property and right of free association.
As often happens with government, when trying to fix a problem, racism in this case, they create a much larger problem trampling on everyones rights.
When it comes to publicly held businesses/properties I think it is wholly different matter. There a corporate entity is seeking special protections provided by government, there the government can demand things in return.
And where is that so absolutely clear in the Constitution? Show me one landlord who will do it and I will show how is going to lose a discrimination law suit brought against him in every court in the land except if the KKK or Stormfront setup a Kangaroo court, then he "may" win.
More in-depth investigation, followed by overwhelming pressure to dump the nomination and start over if he starts to smell like Souter.
It's not that hard, really. It's called having clear principles and sticking to them.
But these are Republicans, so that is not to be expected.
P.S. You really need to work on your English skills. They're pretty poor. Mine may not be the best, but at least I try.
How about you show us in the constitution where it is required that a private individual rent his/her property to people he/she doesn't want to for whatever reason.
It ain't there.
Since you aren't then by your silent assent you're agreeing that some part of the conservative party is doing just that and you're simply not going to recognize it.
Ah, if this is the type of discussion that goes on on the WOD threads, I can see why you all are having a problem over there.
Perhaps you should get out more or associate with different folks
Perhaps you should try associating with some people who aren't so damn paranoid.
That's right, just like the Constitution "allows" government to confiscate a private citizen's land and home and hand it over to another private citizen if it will mean more tax revenues from the hotels and fitness spas that the new owner will build.
You appear to be a big fan of judicial activism. Well, congratulations. Your side is winning.
Against my better judgment I'm going to give you a civics lesson here.
The 14th Amendment was one of three constitutional Amendments adopted at the end of the Civil War. The first one was the 13th, which abolished slavery. It took a constitutional amendment to do that because the Constitution did indeed allow slavery up until that point. It didn't mandate it, but it did allow it.
The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to give the newly freed slaves full citizenship status (as slaves they didn't have that) and to guarantee that they would have access to the courts. Slaves, not being full citizens, often lacked the ability to sue, for example. The phrase "equal protection of the laws" meant states couldn't restrict anyone's access to the court system. It didn't mean what liberal judges have now interpreted it to mean. It didn't mean there can be no discriminatory laws. It absolutely didn't mean that states had to be aggressive in "ending discrimination against gays". It certainly didn't apply to private individuals.
The third and final of the post-Civil War amendments was the 15th. And what did the 15th do? It banned racial discrimination in voting. Now, you may be asking, why did they need this amendment? Didn't the 14th Amendment's "equal protection of the laws" passage mean that states couldn't discriminate against blacks in voting? Nope. It took another amendment to do that because all the "equal protection" clause was ever intended to mean was that all citizens have the right to sue. Not to win, but to sue.
It didn't give women the vote, either, and that's why it took another constitutional amendment six decades later to do that.
Now, of course, we're told by liberals that the 14th Amendment does all kinds of things. It means women have to be let into the Citadel. It means women have to be drafted. It means the Boy Scouts have to be booted from a city park unless they agree to have gay scoutmasters. It means Colorado voters can't throw up a barrier to the gay agenda being imposed on them. It means gay marriage.
But it was never intended for any of those purposes, or even to give blacks or women the vote.
You have the number one problem conservatives have. You are trusting. Bush is not a conservative. How many blows do conservatives have to get over the head before they understand that? Souter and Kennedy were not mistakes, but intentions. Just because someone calls himself a conservative and the media plays along does not mean he's a conservative.
How to recognize when a real conservative is nominated for the court: Look for Chuckie to be literally shaking with rage, not just acting enraged. Look for statements from one of the ex-Presidents Bush that this doesn't look like a prudent nomination, etc.
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.