Posted on 08/05/2005 11:45:39 PM PDT by SmithL
Conservatives reacted cautiously to the news this week that federal Judge John G. Roberts Jr. helped a group of homosexual rights activists win a seminal victory 10 years ago before the Supreme Court. "Judge Roberts was an attorney with a large firm where helping colleagues when called upon was expected," Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said yesterday after researching the matter. "I have verified that his involvement was limited to about five hours of participation in a moot court as he played the role of one of the high court's conservative members asking tough hypothetical questions of the attorneys who actually prepared and argued the case." Mr. Perkins said his initial reaction to the news was concern that Judge Roberts had been "aiding and abetting" the groups. But after discussions with the White House and surrogates, Mr. Perkins urged caution in reaching that conclusion. Earlier this week, the Los Angeles Times reported that Judge Roberts had performed pro bono legal work to help a homosexual rights group win one of the most significant Supreme Court cases on homosexuality. The 1996 decision in Romer v. Evans ruled unconstitutional a voter-approved constitutional amendment that barred municipalities from granting homosexuals a protected class under civil rights laws. But White House supporters said yesterday the hysteria over Judge Roberts' involvement in the homosexual rights case has been fostered by liberals hoping to split the right's support for the nominee among conservatives. "The goal of the left here was to try driving a wedge between conservatives and a nominee," said Leonard A. Leo, a conservative lawyer working with the White House to confirm Judge Roberts. "They have failed." Also yesterday, the Justice Department officially rejected the request by Senate Democrats for Judge Roberts' papers from his time as deputy solicitor general ...
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Couldn't Roberts easily clear this up with a simple, straightforward statement?
Something along the lines of: "The pro bono work I did was assigned and not voluntary. I disagree with both the premise and ruling of the court regarding Romer v. Evans."
Otherwise, speculation will continue.
For whatever it's worth, this spiel is being spread by Dr. Michael Savage, and I don't take any position here.
I do not think we down played it at all. It scares us. To help over turn state voters rights. The term talk radio hosts are using (Center Right) sends chills up my spine.
Good God I don't care.
It's not like he was marching in a f--king pride parade for crying out loud.
"Dr. Michael Savage"
I have tried to listen to this unstable cretin, but I don't think I am alone when I say that he and those who agree with him can go fornicate themselves with an iron stick!
Clear what up, for who and to achieve what purpose?
Think about it. This is all about trying to get conservatives to be against him. We are past that point, since he has been nominated. The concern now is to think only about the votes in the Senate.
Are Republicans going to vote against him because he helped gays? No. That would mean they are homophobes.
Are Democrats suddenly going to be for him for the same reason. Of course not.
The left is only trying to divide and conquer. I say we trust the President on this one.
His rhetoric and manner can be extreme but he can be very coherent and incisive.</p>
If you can't find yourself moved by his emphasis of a "border, language, culture" credo then I have no idea what you're doing on FR. Nationalism is something we could certainly benefit from at this time. Instead we're being lead down a primrose path of open borders, balkanization and more by *both* parties.</P>
I don't agree with him all the time by any stretch and can only take his show in small doses but his open contempt for the jellyfish in government is welcome!
WHY? Bush is a proved liar and typical dynastic politician in a homespun package.
I have no care on this decision but I'm *very* concerned it's a case of "like father, like son" when it comes to SCOTUS nominations dominated by unknowns.
That people are having hissy fits over this TEN HOURS of pro-bono work in a career of decades is equally embarassing. I wish people would just grow the hell up and not be such fools when it comes to what other people do in their private lives. I thought Republicans were supposed to be about getting government out of our lives. Let the damned gays do what the hell they want as long as it's not illegal or indoctrinating kids. And when a lawyer--who, surprise! doesn't just help "innocent" people or people he likes--gives a few hours to someone, let's not all start with the "Oh he's a liberal" CRAP.
Flame on, who cares.
If you are putting me in the bunch that agrees with Dr. Savage, you need to finish reading my reply. I am definately not agreeing with him on this. I am just saying that he is one source for this "charge". Also, I listen to him "accidentally" on 5 minute trips to the grocery store. However, he DOES provide a valuable service, in that he really slams GWB for his absolute abdication of his Constitutional obligation to protect our border(s). I am a supporter of GWB on almost all issues, BUT- I am sure that his mal-feasence on the border issue has possibly surpassed the impeachment threshold.
Take a deep breath and relax, then adjust yourself to reality and not Savageland.
The question is not "is Bush a true conservative" nor is the question which is at hand, is Bush defending our B L and C.
The question is, should we support Roberts. We have already lost the battle as to who is the preferred nominee. So what is our back up plan?
Roll Robert's under the bus and give the left a victory? or hold our tongue, get Roberts in and then exert pressure on the next nominee.
If you do not know which battle to fight, then you have already conceded defeat.
I replied to troublou? before I saw your reply, and I must say, I feel exactly as you do, Dr. Savage can be coarse and vulgar, but also very incisive and correct. I believe that we both feel the same about savage. Also, he does have the biggest cuhones on talk radio!
Honestly, folks, is this what we want to do? Become single-issue conservatives? So Judge Roberts did some pro-bono work for a gay-rights outfit some years ago...big f'n deal. Some here have called it correctly, it's simply an attempt by the Left and the MSM to drive a wedge between conservatives and the President. The moment we start to snipe at Roberts because of this, it's the moment the MSM and the Left have won.
This probably isn't the right thread to quote Otto von Bismarck about sausages and laws, etc., right?
And a phony. He's laughing all the way to the bank that anybody out there actually takes his schtick seriously.
It shouldn't be played down.
It is deeply disturbing.
No it wasn't. It was the culmination of a two decade long process of trampling the constitution, trampling the separation of powers, trampling Federalism, trampling the moral foundations of this country. It began with the disaster of Brown vs Board of Education, and culminated in the abomination of Roe (not "ROWE") vs Wade. Along the way the disastrous Warren court expanded criminal and felon rights, shackled law enforcement, destroyed states rights, expanded uncosntitutional federal laws, expanded interstate Commerce to mean everything, suffocated businesses, and vastly increased the scope of dubious labor laws.
Please remember that the next time you say "R v W was just one decision." It was a mentality and a tradition of ignoring and mocking the Cosntitution by the bastards on the Warren court.
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.