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.
Short of joining with Schumer and opposing Robert's I just don't see what is to be done about this. I would rather have another Souter than join Schumer in anything, but I don't see any real evidence that Robert's is bad for the conservative cause. Pro bono representation does not imply an endorsement.
That's a bunch of baloney - as proven by your having posted this in your title:
Joseph Farah Slams Conservatives For Being Bamboozled By White House Alert
And Joseph Farah is full of crap.
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.
Reagan put Kennedy on the Court.
I don't believe ANYBODY should be purposefully discriminated against with regard to housing or employment because of their sexual orientation. Period.
So will I ... go with Mark Levin's opinion.
If they struck it down tomorrow, abortion will still be legal in 50 states.
Misery makes some folks mighty happy
Farah = part-time wing-nut
Of course Bush was NEVER "good enough" for Joe or Carl, was he?
And I remember when WND did some honest to goodness great investigative reporting!
And who could ever forget Paul Sperry's wonderful afternoon on the White House lawn? Outstanding!
If so, I am not surprised you would be angry with Farah.
Still, 30-40 years is a long time to pay the price for a mistake. On balance, I still have confidence that Bush made the right choice. But just barely.
If that's the case, then it can't be true without the willing complicity of the Bush administration, which will have the power to make sure Roe is overturned if it wishes it. The Republicans have a solid Senate majority and the Democrats are over the table on the filibuster. If Bush ends up preserving Roe through his appointments to the SC, then it's because he wants to.
A policy of stealth, ambiguity and appeasment through avoiding a confrontation may be a big mistake.
Maybe the administration is being too smart by one half in this nominaiton.
I am not ready to "gather around the flag" for the President only to aid and abet a drastic mistake.
The court system, more than anythng else in this country [imho] is destroying America and its culture. It has to be stopped and SCOTUS nominations are critical in changing the course of the country.
I heard Coulter interviewed on Hannity a couple days ago. She was ranting about how Roberts has no paper trail, and going on and on about Souter's betrayal, suggesting that Roberts could follow suit. When Hannity asked her whether she had read the (apparently lengthy and very specific) answers he had written to the committee's questions, she hadn't. So how can she pass herself off as an expert on Roberts's credentials?
It denied them all legal means to seek any protections under the law. The 14th Ammendment prohibits singling out a specific class of people, without some independent and legitimate legislative end, for such forfeiture of legal protections.
Juding from yours, I'd say that your deductive skills are about comparable to a second grader.
But I understand you people get off trying to insinuate anybody who doesn't agree with your scorched earth policy is pro-life and pro-gays.
I was very clear about what I said; I don't think ANYBODY should be PURPOSEFULLY discriminated against because of their sexual orientation, including you, if you have not managed to offend everyone of the opposite sex with your holier than thou attitude and actually HAVE a sex life.
What ever one thinks of Farah, the above is irrefutable. Roberts was a poor choice, and should withdraw his name from consideration.
Precisely.
But never mind; these tunnel-visioned single issue voters NEED a arrow to strike this man in the heart.
I usually don't pay too much attention to Joseph Farah, and this kind of utter rubbish explains why. Anyone who knows anything about the L.A. Times knows that it operates in lock-step with left-wing special interest groups, and those groups are all opposing Roberts to the maximum extent they can.
Why would the Times want to "bring Democrats on board"? Even if they secretly wanted Roberts to be confirmed, there's no need to persuade Democrats to vote for him. All it will take is a handful of Democrats in the "Gang of 14" to agree not to filibuster him, which is what will likely happen regardless of any story the L.A. Times runs. Democrats know they can't filibuster in this case because that would make it easy for Republicans to claim the Dems had broken the agreement, and hence to exercise the nuclear option.
Even if Roberts was a "stealth candidate" in the mold of Souter and Kennedy, the optimum political strategy for Democrats would still be to castigate him and allow him to be approved by the narrowest margin possible. That would presumably pressure Bush not to appoint a hard-core conservative next time, on the theory that even Roberts barely squeaked through.
So irrespective of whether Roberts is in fact a solid conservative or a stealth liberal, the intent of the L.A. Times story was to drive a wedge into conservative Republican support for Roberts. It's purpose was not to reassure the Left. Farah is trying to bend the facts to fit his emotional preconceptions.
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.