Posted on 08/04/2005 9:10:32 AM PDT by gopwinsin04
You signed up just to say that, eh?
It's so ridiculously simple that why are people even mentioning it? The attorney who was counsel to the plaintiff was a partner in Robert's firm.....the guy needed professional help from a colleague. Roberts did the guy a good turn as a friend/colleague. Why read more into it?
Too bad the precedents for overruling SCOTUS can't work for issues like Kelo v. New London!
I predict this will only become a big issue if Focus on the Family engages on this issue, it sounded today like Rush was hoping the issue would just fade away. (which might not be bad political startegy for now-unless the base gets active)
I think Roberts has to deliver, because of the past record of appointees like Souter. If not, this could have serious electoral conseqences.
Neither the state of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of, or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing.
In his dissent (joined by Rehnquist and Thomas), Justice Scalia wrote:
Since the Constitution of the United States says nothing about this subject [homosexuality], it is left to be resolved by normal democratic means, including the democratic adoption of provisions in state constitutions.
Not sure what Roberts' role actually was in this case, though. And I'm not sure if this story was pushed by the left to erode his support among conservatives, or by the GOP to erode opposition to him on the left.
I am worry too... I tend to see things in black and white. I like the guy but this is the SC!... and he is so young, we can't afford to screw this up.
I agree that this is a major red flag, but I don't agree that Rush was downplaying it.
This raises concern regarding judicial activism overturning the will of the people, and needs to be addressed directly to Roberts when he is questioned.
But drawing drastic, emotional conclusions with impartial evidence, is not helpful, nor wise.
Now you have me almost curious enough to go and look up the Roemer case on the SCOTUS site. I remember when the Colorado law came down...and the Roemer decision. I really have a mixed opinion in regards to current civil rights legislation. I don't mind sexual orientation being included in existing civil rights statues, but I can't quite put my finger on it...gay activists want homosexuals to be treated deferentially by having even more legislation written. The problem is that we don't need more laws. A bit of tweaking with what's already on the books OK. secondly, most lawsuits involving civil rights (in the district courts) are based on lousy facts. The bit I have read on individual cases, the facts are shaky on many of them...it's like you're deciding on what's in the defendant's mind. I thought juries went by facts, not ESP or mind reading.
Rush is disappointing me (I'm listening on tape delay). He's focusing on what the left is trying to say rather than pursuing any deep conservative analysis of the facts of the matter.
He didn't agree to help the groups. He wasn't the lead lawyer, or even a lawyer listed in the briefs. It appears he might have helped a colleague in his office in the preparation of the case. I'm not sure I am going to believe left wing lawyers who have been used as unnamed sources in left wing rags.
"The case was about protecting people against discrimination because of their sexual orientation."
People SHOULD be able to discriminate against someone because they're a homosexual.
If some guy dressed in a dress and high heels comes into my store looking for work, I'm gonna tell him to get the hell out of there.
Same thing if he comes to my house and wants to rent a room from me...we're fighting this nonsense in the Oregon legislature right now, the Dems are trying to pass a "Civil Unions" bill that also has an anti-discrimination plank in it.
Ed
This is really disheartening news to me...
I suspect that after he's confirmed, and a 2nd Amendment case, Pro-Life case or homosexual "rights" case comes up before him, we'll all be saddened at the results.
Why, oh why, didn't President Bush go for Owens, or Brown, or Wilkinson, and fight for them...why appoint an unknown, stealth candidate?
i just don't understand why he doesn't fight more for Conservative causes.
Ed
He's now telling callers that he will bring on Ann Coulter tommorrow to debate the Roberts issue.
Maybe Mark Levin will bring something new to the table at 6PM Eastern on WABC before Laura Ingraham.
Serious electoral consequences for whom? I agree that if Roberts turns out to be a typical Ivy League appointee that there will be disappointment. But Bush isn't running again.
I do think this news makes it very possible that he is a typical Ivy League appointee--that he may be pretty reliably pro-business, but may not be reliably on-board on social issues.
His background is opportunistic rather than committed, for example. But, as I've said, it's hard to tell because the paper trail is thin.
We're left where we've been in the last few nominations, trusting the President and the Party to do the right thing. The batting average has not been good, and this guy is a little opaque right now.
Would this guy qualify as a 'stealth nominee' in your opinion? Because I'm sure that is what Ann Coulter will say tomorrow on Hannity.
Very possible
What exactly was the case about?
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.