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 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-346 next last
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]

To: goldstategop

You won't even need to hear Roberts' answers to conservatives' questions to know if you are satisfied. Schumer already plans to ask Roberts' opinion of abominable cases like Roe and Lwarence. You will then be able to judge the answers.


261 posted on 08/08/2005 7:40:45 AM PDT by guitarist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow

Thank you so much for posting the actual text of the Romer decision. I agree with you. I notice that no one else on this thread has even replied to your post. Sad.


262 posted on 08/08/2005 8:26:44 AM PDT by Dems_R_Losers (Where is Chris Lehane??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

I can't help but think we are being played by the left on this.

They are weakening GOP support, and then they'll pile on him worse than Bork. Watch how this will work, it is the ONLY thing they can do without providing popular support for the "Nuclear" option.

Republicans/Conservatives are fical and hate winning. This is the only reason Democrats get elected.


263 posted on 08/08/2005 9:31:00 AM PDT by Dead Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288

Time will tell if Joseph Farah is on to something. At this time in 1990, Howard Phillips warned that David Souter was no conservative though he had nearly unanimous Republican support. Phillips had issued a similar warning (along with Jerry Falwell) on Sandra Day O'Connor in 1981. In a year or two, perhaps we will know if Joseph Farah and Ann Coulter are the few conservatives right on Roberts.


264 posted on 08/08/2005 9:37:47 AM PDT by Theodore R. (Cowardice is forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Saynotosocialism
"Why or how could he be?"

How could he neglect our borders?

Carolyn

265 posted on 08/08/2005 9:41:31 AM PDT by CDHart (The world has become a lunatic asylum and the lunatics are in charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Can either Ann Coulter or Farah suggest a single name of a real live person who meets their criteria and who would have the slightest possibility of being confirmed?

If they can, then they should do so, as well as list the reasons why their candidate would not be filibustered and blackballed by the Democrats.

If they cannot provide that kind of bona fide information, then what is their solution to the President's dilemma?

266 posted on 08/08/2005 9:41:35 AM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moog

That sounds about right.


267 posted on 08/08/2005 9:42:03 AM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

With Farah against him, I know he will be good.

Farah is always wrong.


268 posted on 08/08/2005 9:48:16 AM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

I have no idea if Farah, Ann Coulter, et al. are right in their concerns about Roberts or not. However, having been burned by the likes of Souder when the candidate has apparently not been carefully chosen to ensure fidelity to the original intent of the constitution's draftsmen, it should be incumbent on (the relatively few) conservative senators to question Roberts every bit as intensely as the likes of Teddy Bare and Upchuck Shumer. History has proven that a candidate should not be backed just because he was nominated by a Republican president.


269 posted on 08/08/2005 9:49:59 AM PDT by reelfoot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

he helped her in how to argue the case, formulate an argument etc.


270 posted on 08/08/2005 9:51:35 AM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Dead Dog
We must build momentum.

The more momentum we have, the easier it will be to confirm more and more openly conservative judges. Right now, we run the risk of shooting ourselves in the foot over what "might" happen, without looking forward to what WILL happen. Foolish.

I really hate to quote a dem in this matter but, we have nothing to fear but fear itself. Hold steady and we'll be pleasantly surprised.

The President could have gone nuclear on his first appointment. BUT, honestly I think he also took in to consideration the lives of the nominees and their families and just couldn't bring himself to set someone up for the kind of personal destruction it would bring. He couldn't send someone out to be cannon fodder. It's easy to forget that these are real people being attacked in the most personal ways.

Just a guess, but I think he really wanted to protect his nominees to the best of his ability. The adoption files are a case in point. They weren't looking for info on the adoption, they were looking for dirt in the background file on the Roberts.

271 posted on 08/08/2005 9:55:13 AM PDT by pollyannaish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: tomahawk
If Roberts is not a conservative Justice, Pres. Bush is a failure.

He better be.

Given that he will be confirmed, we can only hope that the WH is correct.

For my own part, I'd rather have seen a slam-dunk candidate nominated than one who we could have these debates about.

I do agree on that point - the USSC is the most important thing the President will do in this term.

272 posted on 08/08/2005 10:31:33 AM PDT by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: pollyannaish; highball

Let's say you're W..you reasonably expect that you will have THREE SC appts to make in your second term..You also know that the Dems, and the far left-fringe groups will vehemently oppose ANYONE you send up...so you send up the guy who "appears" the least conservative.knowing that once the Dems jump on him..then anything they will say against your next two nominees can be dismissed...as the Dems opposing everything..it's smart politics..and Roberts will prove to be a superb judge...he's the next CJ..


273 posted on 08/08/2005 10:36:25 AM PDT by ken5050 (Ann Coulter needs to have children ASAP to pass on her gene pool....any volunteers?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288

He has written that he is neither a conservative nor a liberal. So, I don't know what the guy is. He is an Arab, yet not a Muslin. He says he is a Christian in other articles I have read that he wrote. But, from what I have read, he will bash liberals and also bashes conservatives.


274 posted on 08/08/2005 10:41:28 AM PDT by RetiredArmy (The government and courts are stealing your freedom & liberty!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
Ann Coulter is justified in her concerns, but why does she ignore the "Proven" Conservatives who know Judge Roberts.

Perhaps Ann is leery because the "Proven" conservatives have no more clue about Roberts than she does. Otherwise, we and the whole nation would have been inundated with examples of his conservative leanings. On the contrary, there seem to be more 'liberal' causes in his quiver than those of conservative bent and as a result, on paper at least, Roberts falls in the "Unproven" column, regardless with whom he makes nice.

275 posted on 08/08/2005 10:51:42 AM PDT by varon (Allegiance to the constitution, always. Allegiance to a political party, never.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
I think there will be conservatives that are pleasantly surprised.

Well, let me rephrase that. Conservatives who want the Constitution to be interpreted the way the founders intended and not activist judges who just make rulings that favor "our side" will be pleasantly surprised.

276 posted on 08/08/2005 10:52:32 AM PDT by pollyannaish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: Dead Dog

And look at everybody on our side doing Chuck Schumer's work for him.

Disgusting.


277 posted on 08/08/2005 11:33:25 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Anyone who is not dumb as a brick would know to predict where the Justices are likely to fall on a given case, and to know the cases inside and out, so as not to be embarrassed by questions from the bench. If you think that advice like that was "absolutely essential" for her handling of the case, you are grossly ignorant of what it takes to conduct a case in the Supreme Court.

Knowing to expect questions and knowing what questions to expect are significantly different however.

BTW, the woman did a horrendous job at oral argument in my opinion. Not that Tymkovich bowled anyone over, but he at least didn't make a fool of himself. She stumbled throughout the ordeal. Lucky for her she had 6 votes going in, cuz no way in hell did her performance change any minds.

Since I have worked on 19 cases, now, in that Court, I assure you from experience that Roberts' advice in this instance was the legal equivalent of "run along, little girl."

Which cases have you argued before the Court?

278 posted on 08/08/2005 1:49:29 PM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow; Dems_R_Losers
Good post.

After an initial shock (like many Conservatives had) over the case, it has become apparent to me that his involvement was less than active.

It doesn't matter all that much, because the law was at BEST questionable as written.

One does not have to support an issue to have problems reconciling it with the Constitution. Clarence Thomas regularly rules in favor of the porn industry, yet we laud him as a strict constructionist. It has to do with how he reads the Constitution, not because of some alliance with or sympathy for the porn industry.

In the case of Roberts, we don't have a wink-and-nudge assurance from questionable Republicans like John Sununu with Souter. We don't have a wing-and-a-prayer hope that because O'Connor was an elected Republican, she'll be a Conservative. We have an impassioned and broad support from such admirable Conservative leaders as James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Mark Levin, et al. Some of them (like Dobson - who worked with him on cases) are even telling us they know what's "in his heart" based on their time working with him.

That's a far cry from the blind, hopeful quotes from right-to-lifers, et al, printed in Ann Coulter's last column about Souter.

We are dealing with a thin paper trail, granted. But we have a far different class of people willing to personally vouch for Roberts as a Conservative. That gives me a much better feeling than John Sununu's "trust me."

I also have a lot more faith in Bush's inner circle than even in Reagan's. I'd almost be willing to bet that the Bush/Rove/Gonzales team has long had a short list with 4-5 names of whom they would never need to ask certain questions because they already know the answers. Okay, it's a hunch, but tell me this isn't the most effective team we've ever had in the White House at screening people. Ashcroft, Rice, Bolton, Olson, etc. etc......I think they do their homework, even "off the record" homework.

John Roberts is no Souter in this regard: he's no stranger to the Conservatives in the White House. He's no stranger to the Pro-Life leaders; he's no stranger to hardcore Reaganites.

I like what Farah and Coulter are doing just like I liked what Buchanan was doing in 2000 - load the gun, cock it, and point it to the heads of the GOP. Then politely remind them how important certain issues/appointments are, and about that problem you've had with an itchy trigger finger.

But I find it harder to believe we have a stealth liberal this time. He has too much emphatic support, too many key people willing to vouch for him - people like James Dobson, who would give their lives for Life and Family issues. He's been in the Conservative circles for a while now; and the Senate doused him last time out of fears on his abortion views. I think that the White House knows he's a genuine Conservative, and I think the Dems know it, too. Why else resist him then like they do Priscilla Owens, Janice Rogers Brown, Pryor, and Pickering now?

This has little to do with my "toeing the White House line," and a whole lot to do with reading between the lines. I vote Republican almost EXCLUSIVELY for the courts, and I think this one is going to work out. The signs are just much better this time:

---He's a PRACTICING Catholic (not a secular Catholic).
---His wife RAN an actively Pro-Life Organization.
---They ADOPTED children (typically, a move of Pro-Lifers).
---He challenged Roe v. Wade - if we're to ignore his active, time-consuming work on this case for the Bush I administration, why are we to pay painstaking attention to his brief verbal advice on the Roemer case?
---He has the personal approval (not just PROFESSIONAL) of men like James Dobson, et al, as I have said before.
---He was voted DOWN by the Democrats previously out of fears on his abortion views, et al.
---It is far more likely to find a "paper trial" on activist judges, by definition. Most strict Constitutionalists will, by definition, not have much of a paper trial because they are simply APPLYING and INTERPRETING law.
---Nobody has yet to adequately point out to me ONE SINGLE HINT that this man is a liberal of ANY mold.
---He has spent nearly all of his time working for and representing Republicans and Conservative issues.

I just see no reason to oppose John Roberts right now. Not yet, at least.
279 posted on 08/08/2005 2:24:57 PM PDT by TitansAFC ("It would be a hard government that should tax its people 1/10th part of their income."-Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: 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."
280 posted on 08/08/2005 2:43:25 PM PDT by Theodore R. (Cowardice is forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: CFC__VRWC

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


281 posted on 08/08/2005 2:45:20 PM PDT by Theodore R. (Cowardice is forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

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.


282 posted on 08/08/2005 2:49:06 PM PDT by CFC__VRWC ("Anytime a liberal squeals in outrage, an angel gets its wings!" - gidget7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

---"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. ;-)


283 posted on 08/08/2005 2:54:17 PM PDT by TitansAFC ("It would be a hard government that should tax its people 1/10th part of their income."-Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

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


284 posted on 08/08/2005 2:57:21 PM PDT by MississippiMan (Americans should not be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Why would Farah care? I mean, will the SCOTUS even be an issue after the suitcase nukes go off? [sarcasm]
285 posted on 08/08/2005 3:00:59 PM PDT by lugsoul ("She talks and she laughs." - Tom DeLay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288; oldglory; MinuteGal; mcmuffin; JulieRNR21
"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

286 posted on 08/08/2005 3:03:57 PM PDT by Matchett-PI (The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law overarching rulers and ruled alike)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
"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.

287 posted on 08/08/2005 3:15:55 PM PDT by Matchett-PI (The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law overarching rulers and ruled alike)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Smartaleck
"Some might say "useful idiot"?"

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

288 posted on 08/08/2005 3:20:28 PM PDT by Matchett-PI (The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law overarching rulers and ruled alike)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Sandy
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

289 posted on 08/08/2005 3:21:14 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob (Will President Bush's SECOND appointment obey the Constitution? I give 95-5 odds on yes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

Good post yourself - thanks.


290 posted on 08/08/2005 3:43:04 PM PDT by ThePythonicCow (To err is human; to moo is bovine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
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.

291 posted on 08/08/2005 4:59:40 PM PDT by nonliberal (Graduate: Curtis E. LeMay School of International Relations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: Dane
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.

292 posted on 08/08/2005 5:02:06 PM PDT by nonliberal (Graduate: Curtis E. LeMay School of International Relations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: Abundy

"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.


293 posted on 08/08/2005 6:05:50 PM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
Thank you for an informative post!

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

294 posted on 08/08/2005 6:14:26 PM PDT by airborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
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.

295 posted on 08/08/2005 6:17:50 PM PDT by airborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
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?!

296 posted on 08/08/2005 6:29:11 PM PDT by airborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
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.

297 posted on 08/08/2005 6:51:09 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

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.


298 posted on 08/08/2005 7:00:21 PM PDT by porkchops 4 mahound (Different day, different guy, same old sh!t.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dsc

What evil?


299 posted on 08/08/2005 8:24:18 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 223 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Show me where and when did the Constitution ever mentioned that women should not vote?
300 posted on 08/08/2005 8:26:42 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 199 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-346 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