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

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

[rollo tomasi]

Scalia is pointing out homosexuality is never mentioned in the Constitution.

Religion and the human race are though.

If the founders, those who created various State Constitutions, etc... approved of this behavior they would have never made it illegal in the first place.

The people of Colorado have every right to protect their basic values if they so choose, there is nothing unconstitutional about Amendment 2.

Homosexuality was and is considered a perverted behavior when Amendments 1-10 as well as 14th were approved.

If one has perverted sex keep it amongst themselves but like Scalia said:

"[Amendment 2 is] a modest attempt by seemingly tolerant Coloradans to preserve traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politically powerful minority to revise those mores through use of the laws. That objective, and the means chosen to achieve it, are [...] unimpeachable under any constitutional doctrine hitherto pronounced."

[alnick]

IMO your cute logic covers up the fact that Bush could be trying to avoid a fight with the liberals with a stealth candidate who turns out like Kennedy and Sutter. I think that the article may be "right on".

Could be? May be?

Next.

[alnick]

When Hannity asked her [Coulter] whether she had read the (apparently lengthy and very specific) answers he had written to the committee's questions, she hadn't.

Coulter has gone out on a limb for her contrarian position. Informing herself would put that position in jeopardy.

I generally like Ann, but she is allowing her pride to cloud her judgment on this.

[COEXERJ145]

Farah, please just STFU.

[Howlin]

I agree completely.

[moog]

---

[I agree completely}

---

I need to frame that comment. Usually, not too many people ever agree with me:).

[Dane]

Farah, please just STFU

Ah come on, how dare you. That would be like asking Travis to give up his, IMO, heroin like addiction to posting the same old, same old, anti-Bush gif over and over again on any thread he posts 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.

Were you an attorney and a "friend" had asked you to do an amicus brief in favor of partial birth abortion, would you do it?

Why not? It is because you have a serious moral objection to partial birth abortion. Why didn't Roberts just bow out because his values system would not allow him to defend sodomites?

[Howlin]

Did he do an amicus brief?

Do you actually know what his roll was?

[Howlin]

er......role.

[CFC__VRWC]

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.

[Dane]

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?

[Abundy]

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.

[You Dirty Rats]

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!!!

[alnick]

Two words: Bernard Kerik

Brown, Pickering, Estrada, Wilkinson, Owen...

[rollo tomasi]

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.

[jackbill]

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.

[You Dirty Rats]

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.

[puroresu]

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.

[XJarhead]

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.