WP: Conservatives Remain Steady in Support of Roberts

Washington Post ^ | August 8, 2005 | Mike Allen

[West Coast Conservative]

The most ardent supporters of John G. Roberts Jr. have had a few moments of heartburn in the month since President Bush nominated him to the Supreme Court, but conservative advocacy groups say that nothing they have learned during the public dissection of his record has dampened their fundamental support.

In a sign that the backing remains solid on the right despite the revelation last week that he helped gay rights activists win a landmark Supreme Court case in 1996, organizers said Roberts's cause will be repeatedly and energetically embraced by speakers at "Justice Sunday II," a Family Research Council production that will be broadcast live to churches around the country next weekend from Two Rivers Baptist Church in Nashville. Speakers include House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and Charles Colson, the former Nixon administration official who heads Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Christian activists had been forced into a snap reassessment when the Los Angeles Times revealed on Thursday that Roberts had taken a limited pro bono role as a coach for gay rights groups involved in the 1996 case, Romer v. Evans , when he was working at the Washington law firm of Hogan & Hartson.

The case was one of three that James Dobson, founder and chairman of the conservative Focus on the Family, singled out when he said on his nationally syndicated radio show two years ago that Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, is "the most dangerous man in America."

In their public statements, religious conservatives held their tongues. Tom Minnery, vice president of public policy at Focus on the Family, said the group views the revelation about Roberts's work for gay rights groups as "disappointing news."

[Sun]

While Judge Roberts pro bono work is cause for some concern, it is certainly not decisive. We should not have a knee jerk reaction, but look at his ENTIRE record, which is probably 99% Conservative.

[adam_az]

I still haven't made my mind up on the guy.

I was more disturbed by his acceptance speech which referred to the US as a "constitutional democracy" than the stuff mentioned by this article.

[NPeery]

I agree He is probably 99% conservative like Justices Kennedy and Sutter [sarcasm]

[HiTech RedNeck]

Roberts = Rehnquist with a soft spot for gays

[goldstategop]

We're in still the dark about his philosophy. Every one sings his praises - but where's the beef? You would think there's something more substantiative than the White House's word.

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

[SiliconValleyGuy]

I heard Ann Coulter on Hannity a couple days ago, and she was ranting on about how we don't know much about Roberts- "he has no paper trail", and when Hannity asked her if she had read the very long responses he wrote in answer to the committee's questions, she hadn't. That's what I call uninformed objections. And Hannity didn't call her on it.

[rcrngroup]

Probably 99% conservative? I don't see that at all. It would be nice if we could determine that or see that from his record.

Hmmmm, we've heard the conservative pitch like, oh..... seven times before, or eight if a blank slate like Roberts (with disturbing trends noted as in his gay rights pro bono case, and his vow to uphold prior SCOTUS rulings as precedence) is included. Fool me once, shame on you.... fool me eight times, shame on me (aka Coulter).

[konaice]

US as a "constitutional democracy"

Well at least he got the operative word in the first position. Im hoping he proves better than an ill chosen word to a populace that largely THINKS we are a democracy and scarcely knows the difference.

[konaice]

I heard Ann Coulter on Hannity a couple days ago, and she was ranting on about how we don't know much about Roberts- "he has no paper trail", and when Hannity asked her if she had read the very long responses he wrote in answer to the committee's questions, she hadn't.

Ann's smarter than that. You have to considder the possibility that Ann is running away from Roberts knowing that a ringing endorsement from her would trigger a bunch of Democrat "See, We told you so" sort of responses.

By pertending Roberts is not conservative enough, it might just fool a few democrats. I'm not saying that is what is happening, just a possibility.

[msnimje]

I watched Judge Roberts 1997 Speech at Georgetown on C-Span three times today. It was about the workings of the Supreme Court. One thing I found very intriguing was his reference to Abortion as "The Abortion Controversy."
He didn't say "Abortion Rights" or "Roe V Wade."

[billclintonwillrotinhell]

Ann Coulter isn't going to base her opinion of Roberts on a bunch of long-winded answers he provides to some committee on Capitol Hill.

When she speaks of a paper trail, Ann is talking about previous rulings and previous writings where a person makes it clear what they believe. With Roberts, he has very limited experience on the bench and he has rarely said or written anything on his own that is even remotely controversial.

We do have plenty of legal briefs from his days in the government and representing clients, but Roberts has gone out of his way to stress that those opinions don't necessarily reflect his own beliefs because he was simply representing his client(s) at the time.

Bush had the chance to nominate someone we absolutely KNOW is a conservative. Instead, he has given us someone we HOPE is a conservative. You'd think it was Republicans who were in the minority after suffering consecutive electoral losses.

[zbigreddogz]

No, Anne is speaking of whatever will get her the most publicity and neat 'controversy' surrounding her so she can write more stupid books.

Colter = Conservative Michael Moore.

And she's 'almost' as detrimental to our cause as Moore is to theirs.

[agere_contra]

Bush had the chance to nominate someone we absolutely KNOW is a conservative. Instead, he has given us someone we HOPE is a conservative. You'd think it was Republicans who were in the minority after suffering consecutive electoral losses.

This bears repeating. And when Anne says the same thing she is pointing to an uncomfortable truth - Republican senators seem to be afraid to do their jobs.

[billclintonwillrotinhell]

Right now I'd say George W. Bush is much more "detrimental to our cause" than Ann Coulter ever will be.

Would Ann Coulter let illegal immigrants come here pretty much at will?

Would Ann Coulter double aid to Africa at a time when we can't even come close to balancing our own budget because of bloated government programs and a multi-front war.

Would Ann Coulter propose increasing funding for the National Endowment for the Arts during wartime - or anytime for that matter!?

Would Ann Coulter nominate a judge to the Supreme Court who only appears like he might be conservative, or would she give us a slam dunk?

Would Ann Coulter cozy up to Bill Clinton and invite the Kennedy family over to her house to watch movies?

Admittedly, George W. Bush is better than Ann Coulter at one thing: Winning elections. But what the heck have we won? The right to act like Democrats and liberals while we call ourselves Republicans and conservatives?

[EQAndyBuzz]

"Right now I'd say George W. Bush is much more "detrimental to our cause" than Ann Coulter ever will be. "

What is "Our Cause?" I am curious. From my point of view, "our cause", when appied to Justice Roberts is, "will he be a strict originalist and not rule by judicial fiat?"

As far as Coulter goes, while I love her to death, I really do not care one iota what she thinks. She is a commentator and has her opinions like everyone else, difference being she is paid to do it.

I for one am not from the far right, however I am a Republican. As for our President, he's doing everything he can with the resources he has. Having to clean up a mess that was created 8 years prior will take time. The roaches hid when Bush turned on the lights. He is only getting to stomp on them now.

Whether State Department, CIA or Justice Department, the Clintonistas embedded themselves like a tick on a hound. It's difficult to scratch and hunt at the same time.

[Soul Seeker]

Ah. So Ann didn't read his responses, but feels herself a qualified judge to label Roberts a "Souter". meanwhile those supporting Roberts are reading everything they can get their hands on, watching C-Span airings of a speech he made (in which he stated the Supreme Court had the RIGHT to overturn precedent or restrict). Now, who is more qualified to assess Roberts? Someone that does countless research on Souter as her last column did. Or someone that does through research on Roberts? She has a Souter fixation.

Reading the WaPo headline I can see they are disapointed the story didn't fracture Roberts support or even collapse it. There is a reason for that. Everything known about Roberts thus far has been extremely positive. We Trust the President. We trust his success at picking placements for the bench. And, of course, the hearings are always time for any questions that may exist. The LA Times WILL NOT be the cause of fracture. Roberts will be assessed separately from the MSM headlines. Judgement will be made separately from their actions.

[joesbucks]

Colter = Conservative Michael Moore.

Hey, that's my line. Been using it for over a year.

[Condor51]

What I want to know, and has been completely ignored is what has Roberts wrote on the 2nd Amendment. All this brouhaha over Roe, and not one mention of a memo or conversation, NOTHING, on the 2nd Amendment. I find that somewhat disconcerting.

The AG's office, Dubya and Ted Olsen when he was Solicitor General, are all on recored that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right (which po'd all of willard's hold-overs). What about Roberts?

Does Roberts hunt like Scalia? Or 'hunt' like John Kerry?

BTW, this is one reason I'm glad Bork, got 'Borked' and why Rudy can go to h*ll.

[alnick]

Hmmmm, we've heard the conservative pitch like, oh..... seven times before, or eight if a blank slate like Roberts (with disturbing trends noted as in his gay rights pro bono case, and his vow to uphold prior SCOTUS rulings as precedence) is included.

Two things:

1. A few hours on a mock court does not a trend make.

2. Judge Roberts did not vow to uphold prior SCOTUS rulings. It flat did not happen.