Roberts Subverted Reagan (Backstabbing Establishment Republican No Friend Of Conservatives Alert)

Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 08/17/05 | Joseph Farah

[Terpfen]

Value-neutral judging?

No. Originalism.

[goldstategop]

Reagan made some mistakes. Every President does. And if President Bush makes a mistake, we shouldn't hold it against him. Worse case scenario - we'll end up with another O'Connor and nothing will change. With one appointment its not the end of the world if Roberts disappoints us.

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

[nopardons]

Thank you for that reply; well done! :-)

[goldstategop]

It implies judges do have values. That's my point. The Left says they shouldn't impose their morality or personal preferences. But if someone's values aren't going to be applied, it stands to reason someone else's values are. Nature abhors a vaccuum.

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

[tame]

I will preface this by saying I hope and pray I'm wrong. But, people, saying I am wrong does not make it so.

My deep concern is that so many conservatives are not even wanting to CONSIDER any facts that might even hint at Robert's being anything less than a solid conservative justice who would hold to originalism.This is exremely careless, and puzzling considering all that is at stake.

This blind rush to support is exacty what got us people like O'Connor, Kennedy, SOUTER, etc.

Now, Roberts will probably turn out being better than those justices. BUT THAT ISN'T SAYING MUCH!

At this point I am convinced Robert won't be the Thomas os Scalia Bush promised. And that's a picking shame because we had the means, the opportunity, and the majority to make it happen. If not us, who? If not now, when?

I'm of the opinion that Roberts might be better than O'Connor (again, that's not saying much), but he probably would not vote to overturn Roe v Wade. And if he wouldn't, then he's not the man for the job.

I urge conservatives everywhere PLEASE be more cautious in your support. If he turns out great, such caution would still have proven to be advisable. If he turns out to be less than expected, any rush to support Roberts now would prove to be an embarrassment.

[Terpfen]

I'm not advocating "no-value judges." Originalism is obviously a value. I'm saying that if the man is actually an originalist, then by definition of originalism he won't let his political beliefs--whatever they may be--interfere with a legal reasoning.

And it's not like we don't know he can't do this: we know he's ruled that a young girl's civil rights weren't violated when she was arrested for eating fries in a no-food area.

[tame]

Virtually every pro-family and conservative group with which I am familiar has proclaimed that President Bush kept his promise by nominating Judge Roberts.

Which only proves they are being uncharateristically careless. Again, Roberts may be a great judge, but there's just not enough evidence to indicate he'd be a Scalia or Thomas, and in fact there are some red flags. I truly hope Roberts puts my concerns to rest.

[JCISLORD]

Why do you say Joseph Farah is against Bush? His site, WorldNetDaily.com, is very conservative in nature, and is hated by the liberal left who have tried to shut him down. If you do not believe me, go to the site. It has some amazing articles defending Christians. The magazine "Whistleblower" associated with this site has some of the best articles I have read on a variety of subjects such as, what is really happening in organizations like the ACLU.
I am very conservative, but I do not always agree with what is happening in our government or with President Bush on many issues. This does not mean that I hate Bush. It just means that I can think for myself and not follow along like a sheep.

[tame]

I am very conservative, but I do not always agree with what is happening in our government or with President Bush on many issues. This does not mean that I hate Bush. It just means that I can think for myself and not follow along like a sheepthe.

Well said. Bush is a good man. But no one is perfect. If Roberts turns out to be a great SCOTUS, I will be more than happy to praise the President's decision.

[Rockingham]

The evidence here is thin but distressing. I think that Farah has Roberts pegged, at least as to the man he was in his 20's. Plausibly, experience, marriage, and parenthood -- the three great teachers of conservatism -- have changed Roberts for the better.

[G.Mason]

" ... "I suggest we keep as low a profile on this as possible," he wrote to his co-conspirator Starr ..."

Are you sure this part wasn't stolen from a note by Dr. Samuel Mudd to John Wilkes Booth?

[RustysGirl]

And what if YOU are dead wrong, which you are? Will you then apologize, shut up and go away?

It's only fair that you make the same promise.

[JoeGar]

Worldnetdaily.com is a kook site.

I agree. His radio show airs here, and he's definitely a right-wing kook.

[Tom Thumbs]

Don't believe anything you read by Joseph Farah
Worldnetdaily.com is a kook site.
They hate President Bush and the GOP and want to destroy them.

---

Yes, Master.

By the way, I'm way ahead of you on this one. I am SO not doing what Farah says, that when he URGED everyone to vote for Bush for his second term, I said nope, not gonna do it; I'm NOT gonna do what Farah tells me to do!

[Always Right]

This article raises several claims against Roberts:

1. First a quote against Weyrich, where the context of the quote is not even clear. Farah equate a quote against Weyrich as a quote against Reagan. It is a stretch by Farah and I still question the context. I would bet that not being a friend was about a particular issue, but without context who knows what was meant. I assume this might be connected to the O'Connor nomination.
2. Then he calls Starr a RINO and makes case that Roberts by association is guilty. Starr may not have impressed many in his Clinton investigation, but is still a class guy and a staunch conservative. When Roberts was first brought about the first thing he was assigned to was getting O'Connor through. Roberts did his job and assisted Starr. Roberts was not backstabbing Reagan, but doing work assigned by Reagan. And I think the guilt by association is just silly.
3. Farah makes a big deal out of Roberts misspelling Weyrich's name. I really don't get that, and it sounds as Farah is grasping at straws.
4. Farah makes a big deal out of Roberts denying he was a member of the Federalist Society. Roberts has spoken to the Federalist Society on several occasions and it is still not clear if he actually joined or was just put on their rooster because he spoke. Again Farah is grasping at straws here.

Farah is a known Bush-hater and is grossly exaggerating the case against Roberts here. Nowhere does Farah come close to proving the title of the article.

[Tom Thumbs]

It's only fair that you make the same promise.

---

LOL!

Maybe I'm just too old for modern debate techniques, but I've never considered "shut up and go away" to be much of a winning hand. When one party is reduced to that level, I tend to get a bit more respect for the other party.

[tame]

regardless of what you think of WND, the concerns re Roberts are legit. It'd very unwise to just ignore certain red flags.

And, no, WND is not a kook site. It's a very consevative site (of course the kooky left would also call WND a "kook" site).

[tame]

BTW, if any opinion and story should be considered "kooky" just because it's convered by worldnetdaily, then I guess that would apply to THIS story.

[Sandy]

If the book was criticizing the DOJ, then Roberts's statement was true at time, and "no friend of ours" meant "no friend of the DOJ". Farah's assuming that "ours" was a reference to the entire Reagan administration or somesuch thing. It'd help to see Roberts's comments in context and to know what the controversy surrounding the book was about. Farah's too over the top about Roberts to be taken seriously though. I bet he hasn't seen either the memos OR the book. More likely, he's just reacting to some news story he read.

[Tom Thumbs]

Why do you say Joseph Farah is against Bush? His site, WorldNetDaily.com, is very conservative in nature, and is hated by the liberal left who have tried to shut him down. If you do not believe me, go to the site. It has some amazing articles defending Christians. The magazine "Whistleblower" associated with this site has some of the best articles I have read on a variety of subjects such as, what is really happening in organizations like the ACLU.

---

Two points that tend to get lost in all the noise:

One, Farah ENDORSED Bush in the last election. He FERVENTLY endorsed him. He essentially got down on his hands and knees and BEGGED people to vote for Bush.

Two, Farah is indeed NOT a conservative. He is a LIBERAL.

I don't find anything wrong with that, being a liberal myself.

Unfortunately, the MEANING of "the L-word" has been perverted beyond recognition over the years. The people who generally go by that label these days are NOT liberals -- they are LEFTISTS.

I, like Farah (and most of the founders), am a CLASSICAL liberal. I consider the leftists who have arrogated the name unto themselves as "neo-libs".