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 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 341-346 next last
To: ThePythonicCow
Scalia is pointing out homosexuality is never mentioned in the Constitution.

Religion and the human race are though.

If the founders, those who created various State Constitutions, etc... approved of this behavior they would have never made it illegal in the first place.

The people of Colorado have every right to protect their basic values if they so choose, there is nothing unconstitutional about Amendment 2.

Homosexuality was and is considered a perverted behavior when Amendments 1-10 as well as 14th were approved.

If one has perverted sex keep it amongst themselves but like Scalia said:

"[Amendment 2 is] a modest attempt by seemingly tolerant Coloradans to preserve traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politically powerful minority to revise those mores through use of the laws. That objective, and the means chosen to achieve it, are [...] unimpeachable under any constitutional doctrine hitherto pronounced."
241 posted on 08/08/2005 6:10:33 AM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: NPeery
IMO your cute logic covers up the fact that Bush could be trying to avoid a fight with the liberals with a stealth candidate who turns out like Kennedy and Sutter. I think that the article may be "right on".

Could be? May be?

Next.

242 posted on 08/08/2005 6:12:05 AM PDT by alnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: SiliconValleyGuy
When Hannity asked her [Coulter] whether she had read the (apparently lengthy and very specific) answers he had written to the committee's questions, she hadn't.

Coulter has gone out on a limb for her contrarian position. Informing herself would put that position in jeopardy.

I generally like Ann, but she is allowing her pride to cloud her judgment on this.

243 posted on 08/08/2005 6:15:13 AM PDT by alnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: All
Farah, please just STFU.
244 posted on 08/08/2005 6:16:33 AM PDT by COEXERJ145 (Tom Tancredo- The Republican Party's Very Own Cynthia McKinney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moog

I agree completely.


245 posted on 08/08/2005 6:19:10 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: Howlin




[I agree completely}



I need to frame that comment. Usually, not too many people ever agree with me:).


246 posted on 08/08/2005 6:23:32 AM PDT by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145; Travis McGee
Farah, please just STFU

Ah come on, how dare you. That would be like asking Travis to give up his, IMO, heroin like addiction to posting the same old, same old, anti-Bush gif over and over again on any thread he posts to.

247 posted on 08/08/2005 6:32:58 AM PDT by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
The thing that makes me iffy on Roberts is that he did not simply say no when asked to help on the case.

Were you an attorney and a "friend" had asked you to do an amicus brief in favor of partial birth abortion, would you do it?

Why not? It is because you have a serious moral objection to partial birth abortion. Why didn't Roberts just bow out because his values system would not allow him to defend sodomites?

248 posted on 08/08/2005 6:43:20 AM PDT by nonliberal (Graduate: Curtis E. LeMay School of International Relations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: nonliberal

Did he do an amicus brief?

Do you actually know what his roll was?


249 posted on 08/08/2005 6:46:44 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: nonliberal

er......role.


250 posted on 08/08/2005 6:46:57 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Farah despises George Bush even more than the liberals do, and he would trash anyone that Bush nominates. In his perfect world, O'Connor's Supreme Court seat would go vacant until after Bush was impeached and removed from office.


251 posted on 08/08/2005 6:50:46 AM PDT by CFC__VRWC ("Anytime a liberal squeals in outrage, an angel gets its wings!" - gidget7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nonliberal
The thing that makes me iffy on Roberts is that he did not simply say no when asked to help on the case

Roberts was the chief appellate expert in the law firm. He was asked by a partner to help out in a moot court case, where he would play Scalia.

He obliged, do you give the finger to a business collegue, when asked for help?

Also a question that I have asked on previous threads, who do you believe more the LA Times and liberal media, or GW Bush?

252 posted on 08/08/2005 6:51:10 AM PDT by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Do you agree with the SCOTUS decision in Romer v. Evans? With Lawrence v. Texas?

Don't know anything about the Romer case, but a conservative can support the result in Lawrence since it dealt with what people do in the privacy of their homes. Regardless of one's position on homosexuality, conservatives should be drawing a bright line where government attempts to regulate consentual, non-harmful conduct ocurring in a private area like a bedroom.

And if Roberts was playing Scalia for a mock hearing, he really didn't help "prepare" the case. Stick with Levin's assessment of Roberts.

253 posted on 08/08/2005 6:54:38 AM PDT by Abundy (Locke, Hobbes, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, et. al. - The orginal extremist militia groupies...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop; XJarhead
He ought to be denied a confirmation vote by the U.S. Senate.

So now Farah is in favor of the FILIBUSTER!! He didn't call for Roberts to be defeated, he's calling for DENIAL OF A VOTE!! As I suspected, this nut and those who support him are allies of the 'Rats.

But I predict he will get every Republican vote and nearly all of the Democrat votes.

At least the man has enough of a grip on reality to understand that not one Republican Senator agrees with his nonsensical tripe. I guess that means the Freepers on this thread who agree with Farah and disagree with the President and ALL of the Republican Senator think that every one of them are RINOS!! Classic. All 55 Senators are RINOS, eh? Because THEY are all RINOS and YOU are the only "true" Republicans, what's your next move -- threaten to leave the Party? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

254 posted on 08/08/2005 7:02:40 AM PDT by You Dirty Rats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frankiep
Two words: Bernard Kerik

Brown, Pickering, Estrada, Wilkinson, Owen...

255 posted on 08/08/2005 7:03:18 AM PDT by alnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Abundy
One of your "original extremist militia groupies" proposed a bill to punish sodomy by proposing banishment and castration. Also for the first time this "extremist" proposed punishing women for sodomy (Something that was not done at the time).

I guess it was an upgrade of receiving the death penalty.
256 posted on 08/08/2005 7:08:54 AM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

When big law firms do pro bono work they assign the task to a first or second year lawyer. But they provide the assignee with help from their senior lawyers.

It is in the best interest of the law firm to provide as much assistance as they can because it is providing training to their newer lawyers, i.e. making them better lawyers.

Since Roberts was a member of the firm, it was in his best interest as well - in strengthening the firm. I suspect that that is just what Roberts provided.

It has been said that he participated in a moot court. Based on his comprehensive experience with the Court, he was very well qualified to do that. That's how law firms work. It certainly wasn't Roberts' fault that the opposing lawyer was not as well prepared.

That's how I read it.


257 posted on 08/08/2005 7:09:28 AM PDT by jackbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: jackbill

The other point is that law firms are partnerships and clients are clients of the FIRM, not just one of the lawyers in the firm. If a lawyer had to conduct an ideological litmus test before deciding if he or she was willing to provide help within the firm for someone else's case, he or she wouldn't last very long.


258 posted on 08/08/2005 7:16:47 AM PDT by You Dirty Rats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats

I still support Roberts, though his involvement in this gay agenda case worries me a little. I guess we'll now have to wait and see, and keep our fingers crossed. He certainly seems to be a constitutionalist based on his written record. This Colorado thing is the only item in his record that worries me. Scalia's dissent in Romer makes it very clear that the six judge majority in that case went FAR outside the scope of their constitutional authority, in order to advance a political agenda (gay).

Roberts will likely win the vote of every GOP senator, but so did Kennedy, O'Connor, Stevens, and Souter. And, in fairness, so did Scalia. So really we'll just have to wait until Judge Roberts takes his place on the court to see what kind of judge he'll be. We'll have to keep an eye on things for years, because often these GOP judges drift leftward over time after starting off as constitutionalist.


259 posted on 08/08/2005 7:17:30 AM PDT by puroresu (Conservatism is an observation; Liberalism is an ideology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: puroresu
You honestly shouldn't worry about the Roemer case. His involvment was limited to 5.5 hours of prepping, then playing the role of Judge Scalia tearing the argument to shread while it was being moot courted. That would be fun as hell from my perspective, and unprofessional as hell for him to have declined to participate.

My firm does similar mooting all the time, and if asked to be on the board, you participate.

260 posted on 08/08/2005 7:25:54 AM PDT by XJarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 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