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.
Joe Farah has always been a stealth conservative to me since he bad-mouthed "South Park" without watching a single episode. I'll take his criticism of John Roberts with the same rock of salt.
God (or evolution or whomever or whatever ) created Man, with unalienable rights. Some of the Men in North America came together to make a written agreement to form a government to further some of their mutual interests. That written agreement is the Constitution and as ammended still applies. It grants the federal government certain power and authority, to accomplish certain common objectives. It places explicit constraints on that authority. It provides for specific structure and proceedings which that government must follow.
I don't need constitutional permission to choose to discriminate against fools, or whatever sort of person I dislike. So long as I don't infringe on your unalienable rights to progress in your life as best you are able, I am free to associate or not with you, and to do business or not with you, without any government authorization.
So, yes, literally, the Constitution does not allow discrimination in private affairs. But it doesn't prohibit it either, the wildly overstretched commerce clause perhaps notwithstanding.
Of course, my right to discriminate against you does not give me the right to affect harm on you, your property or your family. We have authorized our government to enforce laws that provide for the common safety and security of us all.
You write with as if you are Constitutional scholar however you know that there is no law in the land that allows discrimination based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, whether there is public or non public money involved. There is no law in America that can protect a company that discriminates against homosexuals, or blacks, or women, and same goes to landlords, etc.... Since such a law does not exist then your interpretation of the Constitution is very naive and very wrong.
If you decide not to hire someone just because he is black or he is a homosexual then you are violating the most basic human rights that make the heart of the Constitution. And by doing so you are harming the person pursuit of happiness and his well being.
I wish I could share your optimism, but I don't think so. I believe that Pres Bush has shown himself to have feet of clay at the most inopportune moments....including this one. There were a number of excellent, principled, constitutional candidates for SCOTUS nominee, and instead Bush gives us a blank slate that we are all trying to fill in and guess at the outcome. Even Bush himself declared that he did not ask Roberts for his opinions on key issues. So we all left with trying to second guess and determine what kind of a justice he will be.
Personally I think that Roberts is doing as much as he can to disassociate himself from conservative views or positions in order to curry favor and placate the liberal/left-wing Dimwits.
I hope you're right and I'm wrong.... but I believe that Roberts will break left once he is confirmed and fully set as a SCOTUS justice. I believe that Roberts will be conservative in big business rulings and liberal/activist on issues of abortion - gay agenda advancement - restrictive religious rulings - social/cultural issues - expanding govt power over states & individual property rights, etc. And then once again, the conservative majority base in this country will be left to bemoan how this could have happened again? (or to be more precise, for the 8th time out of 11 times).
The heart of the Constitution is the formation of a government with certain purposes, structure, authority and constraints.
However you have clearly and repeatedly demonstrated that you are utterly incapable of understanding this.
I give up.
So you believe that it's OK for government to interfere with PRIVATE property owners and PRIVATE employers as to who they may or may not rent property to or who they may or may not hire? You believe that it's OK to substitute the guns of government for the judgement of private individuals as to what is best, in their opinion, for THEM? Oh, it's only in this instance? How heartening. And other statists only want to control only a FEW aspects of the lives of others, so that's OK with you, too? Well, of course it is. Based on your shrill posts in many arenas, you are as much a control freak as Schumer or HiLIARy ever dreamt of being!
There was a lady in Sacramento some years back who refused to rent an apartment to an unmarried (hetero) couple because to do so would violate her strongly held beliefs. She was sued and lost. I suspect you would have led the cheers of the libs who were overjoyed when the lady lost her case and a whole HEAP of what little of her retirement funds she ever had.
It is perfectly OK for PRIVATE individuals to exercise whatever discrimination they choose, from whom they rent to, to who comes over for dinner, to who works for them... To go beyond that, to harrass or intimidate someone of whom they disapprove, THAT is where the law properly steps in... However, short of that, discrimination is proper and even normal; as you might choose Trix over Cheerios or bacon over steak, I might choose to rent my home to a married, heterosexual couple over a pair of lesbians or an UNmarried hetero couple or whatever. And we would both be right and proper in our choices... FOR US. As long as you don't start pouring out the Cheerios in the store aisle or I don't start chasing the lesbians down the street with a club in my hands.
I'm still cautiously optimistic that Judge Roberts will be a constitutionalist Supreme Court justice. But if you are correct and he breaks leftward the way Warren, Brennan, Stewart, Powell, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter did, then it might finally be the watershed event that causes Christian voters to abandon the GOP.
There is no certainty in such matters.
Eventually, as old age and death come to the individual, I expect that great nations each run their course. Our descendants will not forever enjoy this great nation as we have known it, but we must continue to extend its life as the most vigorous fountain of freedom in human history so far, as best we can, for as long as we can.
As Reagan showed us, do not overlook the value of optimism in the face of uncertainty.
When you belittle the legitimate concerns of anyone, it makes your support for Roberts suspect. These are absolutely proper questions to ask and answers should be forthcoming. You are just another lemming who will follow the pack off the cliff, just because the leader has that magical (R) after his name. You have no questions, no hesitation. Which is fine for YOU. It's your life and you may do with it as you will. HOWEVER, some of us put a rather higher value on our lives and on the Republic given us by the founders. We wish to see freedom truly restored for ourselves and our posterity, rather than follow the pack, simply because it's "fashionable" or "trendy" or whatever word it is that you use.
"If you decide not to hire someone just because he is black or he is a homosexual"
Mental disorder is not equivalent to race. Never will be, no matter how many times you repeat it.
"Would you send your son to the government schools? You get what you deserve there."
You dodge the question.
If your son is safe from that at a private school, is that not because the private school is discriminating in hiring? And are you not approving of that?
Of all of the excellent posts on this thread, yours is near the top.
It was short and right on target. Thanks.
I am absolutely approving of that.
"I am absolutely approving of that."
Well, I guess I'm confused. I don't see how that is congruent with your earlier statement that "I do not believe that homosexuals should be discriminated against"
Oh my. You have things *completely* backwards here. Your comment is the equivalent of saying that there is no law in the land that grants you permission to eat crackers in bed and therefore eating crackers in bed is forbidden. Thing is, you don't need a law that allows you to do something before you can legally do it. Asking permission before acting is for children, not for free adults.
The Constitution certainly *doesn't* forbid private parties from discriminating on the basis of race or gender or anything else. There's no need for a "law in the land that allows discrimination". The right to discriminate is the default position. That right was taken away by Acts of Congress, NOT by the Constitution. Don't you get that? Non-discrimination is required by statute, not by anything in the Constitution at all. If the anti-discrimination laws were revoked tomorrow, the default situation, i.e., freedom to discriminate, would return--no permission or law that allows it would be required.
Essentially, what you're claiming is as follows:
That which is not specifically permitted is forbidden.That's the mindset of a slave.
http://mail.bwscampus.com:8080/~rob_michelson/as/colorado2dissent.html
Oops. No wonder I confused you. My argument with that other poster was about what the US Constitution is. I wanted to convey that I did not say that all homosexuals should be discriminated against. I must have been typing ahead of my brain. Or vice versa. The point was supposed to be that my opinion about homosexuals was irrelevant to the argument.
That said, homosexuals give me the creeps and I prefer not to knowingly associate with them. I certainly don't hire them.
Regards,
LH
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.