And that heat-seeking missile found its target, i.e., splitting the Right. Very good job, Leftists. It worked.
Posted on 08/08/2005 3:29:26 PM PDT by TBP
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.
Remember, some conservatives opposed Kennedy, O'Connor, and Souter, and were roundly attacked in the conservative movement for doing so.
George W. Bush has been determined not to repeat his father's mistakes. Everyone agrees that Souter was a mistake, so chances are that the current President Bush was prepared for this.
Now, now. He's been chosen by the Prez, has a wife and two cute kiddies, and is Roman Catholic. How could we ask for more??
And that heat-seeking missile found its target, i.e., splitting the Right. Very good job, Leftists. It worked.
He'll be confirmed anyway.
R9etb: No on Farah.
"I think this is quite distressing."
Yes, it is distressing that Farah would fly off the handle, while 85,000 pages of documents indicate he is a very conservative person and judge.
" It's even more distressing that conservatives seem to think that this is a non-issue. Whether or not we agree with Farah's position, we should at least be talking and thinking about this."
Why? and play into the hands of the liberals, who *know* he is the real thing, a dangerously smart conservative, and are using this merely to cut the conservative support for him?
I'm pretty sure he will be confirmed. Still, that heat-seeking missile found its mark perfectly.
Why does the right spend so much time attaching its own?
Farah is not telling the truth. John Roberts DID NOT ACCEPT a PRO BONO CASE FOR GAY RIGHTS!!! Wrong, wrong, wrong.
I think that Coulter and now Farah are completely full of b.s.
Roberts is very much a strict constructionist...and very close to being an originalist. Look at the french fry case, for example.
Roberts is no David Souter.
Perhaps he knew that there wouldn't be a chance in heck to advance his career as a judge if the libs had found he'd recused himself on a homosexual case?
I read on another FR thread that Roberts and his firm donated all of FIVE (5) hours toward this pro-bono case. It is believed that the WH leaked this information to cut the legs out from under the far left opposition.
Didn't Farah also predict a Kerry win in 2004?
Joe Farah's articles shouldn't be allowed without a barf alert.
I think because it's far easier for them to attack their own allies than it is for them to attack the Left.
Your mileage may vary. Afterall, I'm high.
Roberts is no David Souter.
Well, that's not what his record in this and other cases says. I'm hoping you're right, but I should think we'd be doing more than hoping. We ought to know.
Gays are not entitled to the best defense they can acquire?
What is Farah's main point? Lawyers should not defend gays? Is this supposed to be part of the conservative platform? This inquiring mind needs to know just about immediately.
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.