The Real Roberts (Conservatives Never Learn From Being Duped By Souter/Kennedy Clones Alert)

Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 08/12/05 | Joseph Farah

[goldstategop]

I predicted it.

I told you those expected to oppose the nomination of John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court would come around after realizing they got their wish – another Anthony Kennedy or David Souter.

It's happening.

Just check out the column earlier this week by the Washington Post's Richard Cohen.

This is the beginning.

Soon you will see some of the most partisan Democrats in the U.S. Senate coming around. Mark my words.

Cohen's commentary is not directed to Republicans in the Senate, who will support the nomination by President Bush unanimously. It is directed to those who might consider opposing him. Here's a man who is convinced, as I am, that Roberts has virtually the entire "conservative movement" bamboozled.

"John G. Roberts Jr. is out of the closet," he writes. "President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court, on the basis of the available evidence and all we know about human behavior, is not – and I emphasize not! – a bigot. Specifically, he seems to harbor no prejudice against gay men and lesbians, who are, as we all know, anathema to social conservatives, who are anti-gay and pro-Bush, in about equal measures. Roberts, amazingly and inexplicably, seems to be a man of tolerance."

What this really means is that Roberts has no objections to creating special protections for homosexuals based on their sexual behavior.

He bases this conclusion on Roberts' role in the landmark 1996 Romer Supreme Court case. Roberts, he points out, "helped develop the winning legal strategy."

Cohen asserts that Roberts may even have endorsed the cause – rather than simply come to the aid of a colleague from his firm, as the White House suggests.

"After all, Roberts was not compelled to volunteer his time. Hogan & Hartson encourages pro bono work, but it hardly compels its lawyers to take cases that they might find morally or politically repugnant," Cohen writes.

Clearly, a lawyer who, say, agreed with the likes of the Rev. Pat Robertson or Rep. Tom DeLay (Rev., Rep., it's all the same nowadays) would not have taken the case. What's more, there's evidence to suggest that Roberts knew what he was doing. He made no mention of the case in the 83 pages he submitted to the Senate outlining his finances, pro bono work and other matters of interest. He knows the political peril of tolerance.

But as we should realize by now, Roberts faces no peril from the right – only the indignities of grilling from the left.

What a sad state of affairs.

We now have "conservative" organizations leading the fight for confirmation of a man who is certain to be a grave disappointment to them.

Ahhh, but we've been here before.

Some of those same organizations and individuals fought equally hard for the confirmations of Souter and Kennedy.

Some people never learn.

Oh, there will be a few left-wing groups that raise a ruckus about Roberts to the bitter end. Groups like NARAL and People for the American Way raise money by demonizing the nominations of Republican presidents.

But, again, watch the votes in the Senate. Watch the hard-line Democrats fall into place one by one and two by two over the coming weeks. When all is said and done, Roberts may wind up with a unanimous or near-unanimous approval.

That's my prediction.

This kind of clarity is just one of the benefits of being around long enough to see history repeat itself – tragically and ironically.

Cohen's right. Roberts is "out of the closet."

But some people – notably most "conservative" organizations – aren't going to recognize it until it's too late.

[goldstategop]

John Roberts doesn't have to fear the Right. The Left might grill him but might ease up once they realize he's not an ideologically committed conservative. If he turns out to be another Kennedy/Souter clone, conservatives won't admit they were taken for a ride til its too late. Ann Coulter at least is asking the hard questions. If he doesn't have any problems with accepting gay behavior at face value, what's to stop him from sanctioning gay marriage? Oh I know, a lot of people have their hopes invested in him and by reading his record the way they want to - they hope he's in the Scalia/Thomas mold. Let's hope our movement's worthies have learned from past experience.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[decal]

You've heard it before, and you're going to hear it again: Joseph Farah is a buffoon, the Washington Post is only good for fish-wrapping, and you're going to look awfully foolish for doubting Judge Roberts' bona fides.

[Mo1]

He bases this conclusion on Roberts' role in the landmark 1996 Romer Supreme Court case.

Ummmm .. it wasn't his case

Look .. I'm all for keeping an open mind about this nomination and hearing the arguments

But could ya give me an argument that has a leg to stand on?

[america-rules]

There's not too many people in this world who I hate but Joseph Farah is one of them.

I can't figure out if what he says is his real opinion or something to get his readership up but he's a nut job and doesn't deal in reality.

Go back 5 years ago and read what he said about Bush and 99% turned out to be bunk !

[goldstategop]

I think I'll wait and see how it turns out. I'm not interested in what extreme left-wing groups do. We'll see if folks like Patrick Leahy and Joe Biden treat Roberts with kid gloves. If Democrats start to warm up to this guy, its going to make me think there's less to the nominee than meets the eye. As for his bona-fides again - where's his history of conservative activism? As Ann Coulter noted, its hard to think of someone who went his entire life without once saying anything controversial - and we learn he assisted liberal causes. Not that he had to in the first place.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Loud Mime]

Please send me the winning lotto numbers for this next Saturday, OK?

[Kay]

Yes, I trust President Bush's judgment.

[Originalist]

Can anyone name a single Bush appointee, to any court, who is not a conservative? So far the man has delivered. I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt until he does otherwise.

[Lancey Howard]

Do you remember David Souter's "bona fides"?

__________________________________________________________

As New Hampshire attorney general in 1977, Souter opposed the repeal of an 1848 state law that made abortion a crime even though Roe v. Wade had made it irrelevant, predicting that if the law were repealed, New Hampshire "would become the abortion mill of the United States."

At this point the only people more opposed to abortion than Souter were still in vitro.

He filed a brief arguing that the state should not have to pay for poor women to have abortions – or, as the brief called it, "the killing of unborn children" and the "destruction of fetuses."

Also as state attorney general, Souter defended the governor's practice of lowering the flag to half-staff on Good Friday, arguing that "lowering of the flag to commemorate the death of Christ no more establishes a religious position on the part of the state or promotes a religion than the lowering of the flag for the death of Hubert Humphrey promotes the cause of the Democratic Party in New Hampshire."

Souter vowed in a newspaper interview to "do everything we can to uphold the law" allowing public school children to recite the Lord's Prayer every day.

As a justice on the New Hampshire Supreme Court, Souter dismissively referred to abortion as something "necessarily permitted under Roe v. Wade" – not exactly the "fundamental right" he seems to think it is now.

In a private speech – not a brief on behalf of a client – Souter attacked affirmative action, calling it "affirmative discrimination."

Souter openly proclaimed his support for the "original intent" in interpreting the Constitution.
_______________________________________________________

(The above was excerpted from Ann's column.)

[TheClintons-STILLAnti-American]

"Clearly, a lawyer who, say, agreed with the likes of the Rev. Pat Robertson or Rep. Tom DeLay (Rev., Rep., it's all the same nowadays) "

Another cute reminder that "bigotry" and "tolerance" have very selective meanings for liberals.

[goldstategop]

Exactly my point. It looks like history will repeat itself. To be fair, Souter had a more extensive paper trail than Roberts has and he seemed almost too perfect. Once he got on the U.S Supreme Court, he turned out to be a grave disappointment. There are no guarantees in naming SCOTUS Justices. President Eisenhower was once said to have remarked his greatest regret was naming Earl Warren Chief Justice. There's something about the SCOTUS that encourages judicial activism - perhaps a reflection of the fact its immune to normal constitutional checks and balances and is effectively answerable only to itself.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Sandy]

a lawyer who, say, agreed with the likes of the Rev. Pat Robertson...would not have taken the case.

Oh brother. If he doesn't agree with Pat Robertson, that's all the more reason to like the guy.

[Señor Zorro]

I like Ann Coulter's take on it, and pretty much agree with her conclusions. We don't know John Roberts. He could, theoretically, be a decent candidate. Recent history, however, tells us to be very wary because there has never been a stealth nominee who was good for conservatives.

Personally, the more I hear about Roberts, the less I like him. So NARAL and Planned Parenthood don't like him. What does that prove? Nothing, except that he isn't a filthy communist, which really isn't our number one concern with him.

[decal]

Warren Rudman picked David Souter to be his assistant AG. John Sununu made him a state Supreme Court Justice. These alone should have been enough to alert someone that all was not well.

And it's not as though President Bush the Elder would have met with much approval by the denizens of FR had it existed then.

The last 4 judges nominated by Republicans to the SCOTUS from the same circuit as Judge Roberts were Antonin Scalia, Robert Bork, Donald Ginsburg and Clarence Thomas. I would have thought that was pretty good company, myself, but if it's not good enough for you, well...

[billclintonwillrotinhell]

Yes, I trust President Bush's judgment.

I trusted Bush's judgment way back in 2000 when I voted for the guy. I trusted him when he said his favorite justices on the Supreme Court were Scalia and Thomas. Obviously, my own judgment was lacking when I chose to trust Bush. The Scalia-Thomas line was just that - a line. It was Karl Rove whispering in his ear, "Get that conservative base locked up, so you can dive to the middle with enthusiasm and "compassionate" conservatism, Dubya." I won't be fooled again.

[Bogolyubski]

Kudos to yourself, goldstategop, for not being afraid to ask the hard questions. Yes, Farah may be an alarmist. He tends to get overwrought. Like you, I hope this really bad feeling I have about Roberts is just excessive worrying. Richard Cohen's remarks bother me a lot more than Farah's hand-wringing does, though. The facts speak for themselves.. Roberts voluntarily assisted a notorious, well-heeled leftist organization, the Lambda Legal Defense Fund (hardly a candidate for pro-bono work on the basis of indigence) in overturning a referendum granting special rights for sodomites. He was under no obligation to do so, and he deceived Senators in his resume by omitting mention of his work for them.

I, for one, will not be surpised in the least if Roberts authors the decision that establishes gay marriage as a constitutional right. Even worse, when it's a fait accompli, the self-styled conservatives here will praise it as a great advance in family values: homosexuals will have their promiscuity constrained by "marriage." Far too many "conservatives" have become nothing more than groveling, subservient dhimmis to the leftist Caliphs who apparently own the country.

[TomasUSMC]

I hope the left tears Roberts up. I hope they go after his adoption records, his wife, the way she dresses them, maybe accuse him of being a closet queereye too.

And when he is sitting on the Supreme Court, I hope every single day, he remembers what the left put him through.

[tame]

ping

[billclintonwillrotinhell]

... There are no guarantees in naming SCOTUS Justices. ...

Well, the only absolute guarantees in life are death and taxes. However, there are some virtual guarantees in naming SCOTUS Justices. Bork was definitely a conservative when he was railroaded by the Democrats. Ted Olson, although much older than Roberts, would've been a slam-dunk conservative on the Supreme Court. There wouldn't be much mystery to him like there is with Roberts. An Olson nomination would've been worth it just to see the steam come out of Chillary's ears. And with Republicans controlling the Senate, it would've forced Democrats to explain what about Olson is "extraordinary" to prompt a filibuster.

It looks to me like Bush was thinking about the confirmation hearings when he nominated Roberts more than he was thinking about the impact he'll have on the Supreme Court. If Bush really wanted to move the court to the right, he would've nominated a known conservative who is on record repeatedly stating his own opinions on issues of the day, not just the opinions of his clients.

[PhiKapMom]

Senator Inhofe said exactly the same thing here in Norman last week. Said when everything comes out you have a rock-ribbed conservative in Judge Roberts. Told us not to believe everything we are hearing. I trust Senator Inhofe's judgement as much as anyone's.