No On Roberts (Joseph Farah Slams Conservatives For Being Bamboozled By White House Alert)

World Net Daily.com ^ | 08/08/05 | Joseph Farah

[Theodore R.]

You say that Farah despises GWB, but he endorsed GWB in the 2004 general election.

[CFC__VRWC]

I wouldn't exactly call it an "endorsement" - he made it perfectly clear that he didn't like either candidate, and considered Bush as the lesser of two extreme (in his mind) evils.

[TitansAFC]

---"They ADOPTED children (typically, a move of Pro-Lifers). But Ray and Kay B. Hutchison adopted two children late in life, and she supports Roe v. Wade as "settled law."---"

Quite true, which is why I said, "typically." I still believe that when you add all of those things up, it points in our favor on Roberts.

Any point can be broken down to its exceptions individually, but the trend is our friend. ;-)

[MississippiMan]

Since there's little we can do about it at this point, I'm hoping and praying we finally get a stealth justice who turns out to be a pleasant surprise for US.

MM

[lugsoul]

Why would Farah care? I mean, will the SCOTUS even be an issue after the suitcase nukes go off? [sarcasm]

[Matchett-PI]

"Mark Levin, Justice Robert Bork, Ted Olsen and many other stellar Conservatives back Judge Roberts and I'll take their advice long before I would Joseph Farah's"

You got that right. bttt

[Matchett-PI]

"The only interesting thing I find about this "article" is the fact the WND appears to have run out of crackpot conspiracy theories and National Enquirer level investigative reporting (at least for the time being). However, I'm sure I won't need to wait long before I once again will have the "pleasure" of reading "breaking news" from WND about Bigfoot, Martian invaders or something similar."

Exactly. It looks like he's doing a "John McCain" to drum up notice for his publication. When I see that kind of crap, that's when I back away. I can smell disloyal-to-the-conservative-cause cynical opportunists a a mile away. I have no use for them.

[Matchett-PI]

"Some might say "useful idiot"?"

And some might say, "cynical opportunist", after the order of John McCain.

[Congressman Billybob]

I have never had the pleasure/terror of arguing a case before the Supreme Court. In all 19 of my case participations, I only wrote a brief -- words on paper only. A couple of those cases were in a procedural posture where the Court hears no argument. In all the rest, that assignment went to others.

My first win in the Supreme Court was emergency relief in McCarthy v. Briscoe, September, 1976. Probably the best known case I participated in was Bush v. Gore, December, 2000. It's been a wild ride, with more wins than losses. LOL.

John / Billybob

[ThePythonicCow]

Good post yourself - thanks.

[nonliberal]

Not sure if he did an amicus brief but his law firm helped the homosexuals.

The amicus was just a part of the hypothetical I proposed.

[nonliberal]

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

You don't give him the finger, per se, but you can say no thank you. Especially if you know the case is going to court and the colleague is defending the enemie's position.

[dsc]

"conservatives should be drawing a bright line where government attempts to regulate consentual, non-harmful conduct ocurring in a private area like a bedroom."

The thing is, you see, that by qualifying it as both "consensual" and "non-harmful," you have limited the subject to husbands and wives.

All extramarital sexual activity is harmful. In addition, those who suffer from same-sex attraction disorder are in a condition of reduced competence, like many others who suffer from mental disorders, and are therefore incompetent to consent.

IOW, anyone who *would* consent to homosexual activity is by definition too disordered to be competent to consent. There is, therefore, no such thing as consensual homosexual activity.

[airborne]

Thank you for an informative post!

This is the stuff that keeps me coming back to FreeRepublic !

[airborne]

What should anybody give a rat's butt what Ann Coulter or Joe Farah or Carl Limbacher think about this guy?

Because it's another point of view.

I still am a little nervous about Roberts, and the more information (including other people's opinions, even yours ;^) ) the better.

[airborne]

That's the real issue here. Not whether a particular state law or amendment is deemed pro or anti gay, but whether the "equal protection" clause of the 14th amendment gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction to override such state issues.

That really is the question, isn't it?!

[Torie]

I don't like state constitutions, and would do away with them except for provisions relating to basic polictical structure, but the idea that a state making choices about what to put into its constitution and take away from the legislature to enact as denying equal protection, when a mere statute would not, is quite bizarre, and judicial activism writ large.

Under this standard, why would a state constitutional amendment stating that marriage is between one man and one women, not equally fall to this Romer sword of Damocles? How does one distinguish it, other than on some loosey goosey policy choice ground? I say that as one who favors legalized marriage on policy grounds.

The Romer decision was flaky then, and is flaky now, and should be overturned.

[porkchops 4 mahound]

I find the liberals LACK of frenzied outrage at this guy very disturbing.

A POX upon all "moderates" when it comes to the Constitution of the United States.

[jveritas]

What evil?

[jveritas]

Show me where and when did the Constitution ever mentioned that women should not vote?