"Judge Roberts, are you Gay?" (My big gay zot)

[Road Warrior ‘04]

Absolutely hilarious! May I use it in the future on trolls?

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

I bookmarked it, heh-heh.

[PilloryHillary]

Please, be my guest. I swiped the pic from another FReeper...as well as the "Dear Troll" letter. :-)

[BIRDS]

[darkwing104]

If that is all you got then you are bigger loser then we could of ever estimated...You have been terminated.

Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my Viking Kitty/ZOT ping list!. . .don't be shy.

[glock rocks]

[Darksheare]

If that is all you have, then you are indeed desperate.

[TheForceOfOne]

ZOT!

[CARDINALRULES]

[Angelas]

Wow...love it!

[Knitting A Conundrum]

I save that one for special occasions...it just describes certain trolls to a tee....

[nmh]

I will give you specifics on WHY I believe he probably is gay and WHY I see him as dangerous in the legal area and IN THAT POSITION:

"We all know about Roberts' role in preparing one of the biggest landmark cases for homosexual activists – the 1996 Romer v. Evans ruling. His pro bono participation in that case should be more than enough to disqualify him in the eyes of true conservatives. Yet many continue to work on his behalf enthusiastically."

Look up the ruling for yourself ... I know WND is alittle nutty but on THIS they are not.

1996 Romer v. Evans ruling


http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46211

Another one ->

Roberts donated time
to 'gay rights' activists
Homosexuals won anti-bias ruling with help of high-court nominee

---

Posted: August 4, 2005
2:32 p.m. Eastern

Supreme Court nominee John Roberts

John Roberts, President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court, donated his time to homosexual activists, helping them win a landmark anti-bias ruling from the high court in 1996.

According to a report in the Los Angeles Times, Roberts helped represent "gay rights" activists as part of his law firm's pro bono work. While the nominee did not actually argue the case before the high court, several lawyers familiar with the case say he was instrumental in reviewing filings and preparing oral arguments.

(Look it up in the Los Angeles Times! It's THERE too!)


The Supreme Court ruling was decided on a 6-3 vote, with Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissenting. Bush has repeatedly said he would nominate Supreme Court justices in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. The ruling in Romer v. Evans struck down a voter-approved 1992 Colorado initiative that nullified "gay rights" measures in the state.

The Times points out Roberts has stressed that a client's views are not necessarily shared by the lawyer who argues on his or her behalf, so the nominee could claim he did not agree with the homosexual activists he helped.

Walter A. Smith Jr., then head of the pro bono department at Hogan & Hartson, told the paper Roberts didn't hesitate to take the case: "He said, 'Let's do it.' And it's illustrative of his open-mindedness, his fair-mindedness. He did a brilliant job."

Roberts did not mention the Romer case in a 67-page response to a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire released this week.

"John probably didn't recall [the case] because he didn't play as large a role in it as he did in others," Smith told the Times yesterday. "I'm sure John has a record somewhere of every case he ever argued, and Romer he did not argue. So he probably would have remembered it less."

Jean Dubofsky was the lead lawyer for the homosexual activists and a former Colorado Supreme Court justice.

"Everybody said Roberts was one of the people I should talk to," Dubofsky is quoted as saying. "He has a better idea on how to make an effective argument to a court that is pretty conservative and hasn't been very receptive to gay rights."

She said he gave her advice in two areas that were "absolutely crucial."


"He said you have to be able to count and know where your votes are coming from. And the other was that you absolutely have to be on top of why and where and how the state court had ruled in this case," Dubofsky said.

Dubofsky says in practicing for the high-court arguments, Roberts played a Scalia-type justice, peppering her with tough questions.

"John Roberts … was just terrifically helpful in meeting with me and spending some time on the issue," she told the Times. "He seemed to be very fair-minded and very astute."

In the Romer dissent, Scalia, joined by Rehnquist and Thomas, said, "Coloradans are entitled to be hostile toward homosexual conduct." Scalia added that the majority opinion had "no foundation in American constitutional law, and barely pretends to."

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45607

Again, I'll leave it up to you to check the particulars on this. It's out there and easy to find. Don't source monger till YOU have seen it for yourself - I think that is the only way you are going to believe this.

Another one ->

Souter in Roberts' clothing

By Ann Coulter

"Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives.

Never. Not ever. "

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45363

[Just mythoughts]

Thank you for your reply.

I have not paid close attention to Roberts, and did not read this article or Ann's comments. I do pray that we are not being deceived.

[RushCrush]

heheehee, you said 'pro bono'

[BruceysMom]

I am VERY conservative. I don't care what anyone does in bed with anyone else, as long as it aint MY anyone they're doing it with.

[nmh]

"I am VERY conservative. I don't care what anyone does in bed with anyone else, as long as it aint MY anyone they're doing it with."

Did you also vote for Bill Clinton?

Allot of folks said the same thing about him and his escapades and look how he ran the country. He betrayed that too.

Or perhaps Barney Frank is your "man"?

What a person does behind closed doors is MORE telling than what he/she does in public and that INCLUDES perversion. Geesh! I though after eight years of ole Bill I wouldn't see such idiotic, compartMENTAL, nonsense.

[BruceysMom]

Ah none of the above. I was 18 when 18 year olds first got the vote and I have voted republican in every election since. What someone does in the privacy of their bedroom is their business. If it is however, done in the Oval office the story changes. I don't have to approve of anybodies sexual habits but my own. I do however take exception to people on the public payroll flaunting their habits at my expense. Last time I looked Mr. Roberts was a private citizen and entiltled to the privacy that all citizens should enjoy. Perhaps you might want to restrict your attacks to those who are truly the enemy, or is anyone who disagrees with you an enemy? If you insist on invading everyones bedroom you will soon find yours is a public forum also. My disapproval of Clinton is for his betrayal of our nation and his betrayal of his wedding vows. A man that will break a vow to G-d will break any vow. Has Mr. Roberts made a vow to G-d?

[onyx]

Why would you wonder THAT?