Posted on 08/04/2005 7:24:32 AM PDT by conserv13
WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. worked behind the scenes for a coalition of gay rights activists, and his legal expertise helped them persuade the Supreme Court to issue a landmark 1996 ruling protecting people against discrimination because of their sexual orientation.
Then a private lawyer in Washington specializing in appellate work, Roberts helped represent the gay activists as part of his pro bono work at his law firm. He did not write the legal briefs or argue the case before the high court; he was instrumental in reviewing the filings and preparing oral arguments, several lawyers intimately involved in the case said.
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
Yes, it's exhibit skaty-eight showing the dumbing-down of conservatism.
I agree that there are many reasons he agreed to help on the case. I also believe that an appointment to SCOTUS is something we cannot afford to screw up. That is why appointing someone who seems to have deliberately left an ambiguous paper trail is so risky. Once a Justice has voted to uphold Roe, it's a little late to say "Oops, sorry."
Why not appoint a conservative jurist who had proved his or her self? When the issue is important to Bush (CAFTA, prescription drugs or No Child Left Behind) he pulls no punches. Why not on judges?
I agree that an appointment to the SCOTUS is extremely important. I also agree that it would be nice if the nominees record wasn't so ambiguous to both of us.
However, two points;
First, given the idealogical makeup of the senate, we may not have the luxury of a nominee who has proved his or her self to both you and I as a strict constructionist. Secondly, given Roberts years of work for people like Justice William Rehnquist and President Ronald Reagan, there are most likely many insiders who do know where Roberts stands on the Constitution.
Thus, most likely, Roberts is not a mystery to the President.
I think Roberts IS a conservative. A cautious conservative, for sure, but I think we will find he's pretty solid when he's on the bench. And, I think his opinions will be well thought out and articulated. He may have more respect for precedent, however wrongly decided, than we might like, and that is a concern. From the recent Coulter article, what paper trail Souter had, he sounded conservative, so one never knows. We just have to trust W and his team on this one.
Let us not forget, Roberts will not be President Bush's last SCOTUS appointment, either. Certainly Rehnquist won't be sitting there another 3 years, and I find it hard to belive Stevens will. (hopefully, that's not wishful thinking)
I agree that I do not wish harm on any justices. Some of them though, deserve to retire, go on book tours, go abroad and read interesting rulings from foreign courts....
My main point is that when Bush really wants something (CAFTA, NCLB, Prescription drugs) he gets it done. I find it hard to believe if he wanted to appoint someone who was unambiguously conservative, he wouldn't do it and fight.
but I think Bush thinks Roberts IS conservative (of course, his dad thought the same of ole Dave)... I think Bush and his team honestly thought from the conservatives on their short list, Roberts was the brightest or most in tune with Bush. You know there was no winning with this appointment, either from the left or the right.
BTW, how does one retire from being God ????????
Bush took no prisoners on CAFTA and PD? More likely, Bush simply had the votes. (BTW, CAFTA good -- PD bad)
Uh, like when he looked into Putin's soul? Bush - despite some FReepers apparent thoughts to the contrary (not you specifically) - can make mistakes.
Uh-um, do you actually know the level of sincerity in Bush's remark about looking in Putin's soul? Perhaps, he really saw what a insincere _bag Putin was and was laying it on just as thick. If one looks at Bush's policies since that remark and subsequently since Putin's return to old Soviet form, it would be hard not to feel that Bush never trusted Putin one -- bit.
Amen.
Jefferson feared a judicial tyranny as much as a legislative and executive one.
VERY interesting, Zulu...thanks!
I gotta' say, I no longer feel as committed to seeing that he gets approved...I suspect he's another Souter, while I was hoping he's another Scalia.
But I really have my doubts now.
Thanks for telling us about Levin's comments.
Ed
Looks like BUSH sent in a Mole.
No, you're reading it wrong. What the amendment did was forbid the passage of "sexual orientation" anti-discrimination laws. FYI, the 14th Amendment does not require states to pass laws which forbid sexual orientation discrimination. In fact, the 14th Amendment doesn't require states to pass any sort of law at all. So how on earth can it be unconstitutional for a state to decide that it *won't* pass laws that the constitution doesn't even *require* the states to pass in the first place?
Judges take an oath to support the Constitution, not to support Congress and the President.
Where does the constitution say that a lower court judge has the power to overturn an act of Congress duly signed by the President.
What article, what section of the Constitution is that in?
Suppose you're a federal judge. Congress has passed a law establishing Catholicism as the only religion allowed. Joe Blow gets indicted for practicing Judaism. The defendant arrives in your court for a bench trial and claims in his defense that Congress has no authority to pass such a law. What do you do?
So, you are telling me that there is no place in the constitution that says that lower courts can overturn an act of congress.
Is there something wrong with the Supreme Court that they don't notice that establishing Catholicism as the official religion is contrary to the Constitution?
Also, the President and each Congressman ALSO take the same oath to uphold the Constitution. They could not pass such a law without realizing they were violating the 1st amendment.
So...why do we need a lower court judge to do this job. He is inferior to the Congress, created by the Congress, and answerable to the Congress?
No, I was telling you the complete opposite actually. "Overturning" a law is essentially just a court's way of saying, "The Constitution does not allow us to enforce this B.S."
Is there something wrong with the Supreme Court that they don't notice that establishing Catholicism as the official religion is contrary to the Constitution?
No, I suspect the Supreme Court would agree with the lower court if the case went that far.
the President and each Congressman ALSO take the same oath to uphold the Constitution. They could not pass such a law without realizing they were violating the 1st amendment.
Yeah right. As if Congress and the President give a flying fig about whether their laws violate the Constitution. Please. Have you seen the U.S. Code lately? :-)
why do we need a lower court judge to do this job. He is inferior to the Congress, created by the Congress, and answerable to the Congress?
We don't *need* them. Congress just decided this is the way we're going to do things. The alternative is to try federal cases in state courts. But state courts can refuse to enforce federal laws same as the federal courts can.
he didn't do ANTHING except advise a COLLEAGUE in very general terms. he didn't argue the case, prepare ANY papers or briefs ANYTHING. Keep drinking your own frikin kool aide.
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.