Skip to comments.No On Roberts (Joseph Farah Slams Conservatives For Being Bamboozled By White House Alert)
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!!!
Brown, Pickering, Estrada, Wilkinson, Owen...
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.
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.
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.
My firm does similar mooting all the time, and if asked to be on the board, you participate.
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.
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.
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.
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.
How could he neglect our borders?
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?
That sounds about right.
With Farah against him, I know he will be good.
Farah is always wrong.
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.
he helped her in how to argue the case, formulate an argument etc.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
And look at everybody on our side doing Chuck Schumer's work for him.
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?
You say that Farah despises GWB, but he endorsed GWB in the 2004 general election.
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.
---"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. ;-)
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.
You got that right. bttt
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.
And some might say, "cynical opportunist", after the order of John McCain.
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
Good post yourself - thanks.
The amicus was just a part of the hypothetical I proposed.
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.
"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.
This is the stuff that keeps me coming back to FreeRepublic !
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.
That really is the question, isn't it?!
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.
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.