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.
I believe they've already read it but they have their own agenda which most can see right through.
Two words: Bernard Kerik
I'm better at jokes than you are at spelling, so get over yourself.
Are you actually ON drugs now?
Because you're making this a lot harder than it was or has to be.
I made a mistake by posting a silly comment to a poster who obviously doesn't have a sense of humor.
No wonder nobody bothers with the WOD threads.
Why? What if he actually thought the lawyers could present the best possible case before the Supreme Court and the Justices would decide it correctly? Judge Roberts lamented the fact that the Rehnquist Court is NOT CONSERVATIVE.
Howlin,
During the confirmation hearings, my Senator Coburn will be asking the right questions that will help us determine if Judge Roberts is a strict constructionist or not.
If his answers to Senator Coburn's questioning make it clear he's not a strict contructionist, will you change your opinion? (President Bush promised that if given the opportunity he would name strict constructionists to the USSC.)
FYI, I'm headed out of town early this morning for a few days, so I won't see any replies for awhile.
Is a strict constructionist enough to restore our republic? It's a question that not many of us ask yet given the enormity of bad decisions and precedent over the last 70 years (OK 200) I think we need to consider it. Now I am not advocating activism but I am suggesting that we need to look into whether a candidate supports not only the structure of the Constitution but also whether they adhere to Natural law principle's it was built on.
I don't know if it's possible. We may be to far gone at this point to ever return to the point where we can continue the ideas of our Founder's, to perfect their concepts of self Government. I just don't think that a mere strict constructionist is enough...IMO
Some would slam Joseph Farah and World Nut Daily for too often bamboozling their readers.
FWIU Roberts spent 10 pro-bono hours helping a colleague who was actually working on the case. It was consistent with his pro bono policy at the time and not indicitive of any Left leanings.
The more I hear about Roberts the more I like. Hs conscience as a lawyer is clear: to represent his client zealously, no matter what. As I have heard it said, he is a "lawyer's lawyer."
This LA Times peice is just there to accomplish what this article is doing: upset the Right since we can't nail him on anyhting.
I have also heard that the NYT is going after his family, trying to find some dirt on his 2 adoptions.
The agenda is clear: If Bush picked him and he isn't on the Lefty List, go after him with everything the MSM has in its arsenol.
Sad Farah fell for it.
You need to do some research. Roberts helped someone else and spent 10 whole hours on this case (and those were probably lawyer's hours).
And the case isn't even a gay rights case -- see some of the great analysis on this thread.
Jeeze.
"Here's the new World Net Daily home page:"
ROFLMAO
"And Farrah, being either a fool or overly excited, buys into the bit."
Some might say "useful idiot"?
"I see you're educating the masses...as usual."
I see you're educating the "asses"...as usual.??
He signed "Campaign Finance Reform" into law, didn't he?? So the answer is yes---at least sometimes.
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.