Skip to comments.
John Roberts Helped Advance the Homosexual Agenda (Editorial)
Blue Mass Group ^
| 8/4/05
Posted on 08/04/2005 9:10:32 AM PDT by gopwinsin04
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-177 next last
To: msnimje
That also means that a GAY landlord cannot keep Heterosexual people from renting an apartment. A gay landlord SHOULD be able to refuse housing to heteros. Anything else is an indefensible abridgement of the gay's property rights, as in Kelo vs. New London.
41
posted on
08/04/2005 9:51:55 AM PDT
by
Sloth
(History's greatest monsters: Hitler, Stalin, Mao & Durbin)
To: sharkhawk
How does "the splitting the right" do any good for the left on this issue?
If Roberts' name is withdrawn, which Bush will almost certainly refuse to do, he would likely be replaced by an even more conservative nominee who would ultimately be confirmed. That won't help the left.
I can't see Bush withdrawing Roberts' name, and I can't see any Republican senators withholding their support. If anything, this latest disclosure has greased Roberts' nomination by softening opposition among liberal Democrats. Today the left has one more reason to be confident that Roberts will drive left just as Kennedy and Souter did.
If we end up with another Souter, it will be despite repeated clear warnings from a few discerning conservatives.
The last thing I want to mention here is the ludicrous posturing of this work as pro bono work. The gay rights lobby is NOT the penniless widow on the corner facing eviction from her home. The gay rights lobby is powerful and exceptionally well-funded. This work classifies as "pro bono" only because the firm Roberts was with was simpatico with the broader social engineering goals of the left. The decision to provide pro bono assistance in this instance was for reasons of politics, not compassion.
42
posted on
08/04/2005 9:53:57 AM PDT
by
JCEccles
To: perez24
Why do I have the suspicion that this is an attempt to get conservatives to oppose the nomination?BINGO!
43
posted on
08/04/2005 9:54:10 AM PDT
by
b4its2late
(If at first you don't succeed, redefine success.)
To: Gabz
Well, I've read the
Romer v Evans ruling and by no stretch did it hinge on some technicality. The ruling overruled precisely what Amendment 2 was meant to accomplish.
44
posted on
08/04/2005 9:55:13 AM PDT
by
AntiGuv
(reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away)
To: b4its2late
You're buying into an illogical argument. See #42.
45
posted on
08/04/2005 9:56:19 AM PDT
by
JCEccles
To: gopwinsin04
The interesting thing is that we should know by this time next year just how much Roberts himself believes in the arguments of Romer v Evans, because the upcoming Don't Ask Don't Tell challenge relies heavily on that ruling.
46
posted on
08/04/2005 9:56:56 AM PDT
by
AntiGuv
(reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away)
To: msnimje
"This case has nothing to do with the inflammatory title "Homosexual Agenda"
You are very wrong. This case "established" that there is no rational reason for society to disfavor homosexuality. If Roberts voluntarily elected to assist those arguing the unconstitutionality of the Colorado amendment, we should all be concerned.
47
posted on
08/04/2005 9:58:09 AM PDT
by
Capt. Jake
(Tar Heels against Edwards)
To: ModelBreaker
Actually, the folks who will be upset here are the folks who give a d##n about whether judges should just make up rights and put them in the Constitution. The Romer case was one of the extreme acts of judicial activism by the Supremes in the past 50 years. Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas dissented to the decision. Thank you for your post, ModelBreaker.
Just to make sure, are you saying the 3 conservatives on the court dissented in opposition to Roberts?
48
posted on
08/04/2005 9:59:58 AM PDT
by
k2blader
(Hic sunt dracones..)
To: gopwinsin04
Wow, so does this mean that Judge Roberts believes everyone deserves their day in court with adequate representation?
How Federalist of him.
49
posted on
08/04/2005 10:00:04 AM PDT
by
golfboy
(character is doing what is right, when no one is looking)
To: ModelBreaker
I wasn't insinuating he would lose his job, but I would hate to work in an office where someone wouldn't help his partners out.
To: sharkhawk
Bush already caused a split amongst conservatives by not nominating a fire-breathing, outspoken constitutionalist. Janice Rodgers Brown would have been a great choice. When your party owns almost every political institution in the country, it's time to start acting like you got a pair.
51
posted on
08/04/2005 10:01:56 AM PDT
by
beeler
("When you’re running down my country, Hoss you’re walking on the fighting side of me.")
To: gopwinsin04
The president's staff must have vetted this case already with Judge Roberts during the application process, if it was good enough for them--it's good enough for me.
*sigh* I hope this isn't the litmus test for EVERYTHING - there are a few things that are apparently "good enough" for the Administration that I still think need some work. Border policy, trade policy and education policy come to mind...
52
posted on
08/04/2005 10:02:53 AM PDT
by
beezdotcom
(I'm usually either right or wrong...)
To: msnimje
This case has nothing to do with the inflammatory title "Homosexual Agenda" The case was about protecting people against discrimination because of their sexual orientation. You are so clueless it ain't even funny. (Or maybe you're a proponent of the gay agenda, who knows.) Making sexual orientation a status for protection is a key element in the gay agenda. If some homo wants to only rent to homos, that's his business. Old Mrs. Thompson shouldn't be forced to take on a homo couple or unmarried couple if she doesn't want to.
53
posted on
08/04/2005 10:03:32 AM PDT
by
JohnnyZ
("I believe abortion should be safe and legal in this country." -- Mitt Romney)
To: golfboy
"Wow, so does this mean that Judge Roberts believes everyone deserves their day in court with adequate representation?
How Federalist of him."
No. It means that Roberts donated his very valuable time to a cause that is repugnant to most of us. I.e. advancing the homosexual agenda at the expense of the Constitution.
54
posted on
08/04/2005 10:03:34 AM PDT
by
Capt. Jake
(Tar Heels against Edwards)
To: JCEccles
How does "the splitting the right" do any good for the left on this issue?Let's say the Dims filibuster, how much pressure will be spent by a split right to push to break it. The way some on FR on talking, they are hoping the Dims will Filibuster.
To: AntiGuv
AntiGuv, would you be able to answer my #48? Was Roberts arguing for the side Justice Kennedy (and the majority of the court) agreed with?
Many thanks in advance.
56
posted on
08/04/2005 10:04:26 AM PDT
by
k2blader
(Hic sunt dracones..)
To: JohnnyZ
Exactly.
I would add that if a private owner who happened to be homosexual did not want to rent to normal folks (us heteros), he should be able to do so anyway. It's still his property.
57
posted on
08/04/2005 10:06:38 AM PDT
by
k2blader
(Hic sunt dracones..)
To: perez24
Why do I have the suspicion that this is an attempt to get conservatives to oppose the nomination? Because that is exactly what it is. Of course those who worship Ann Coulter and those who hate President Bush will be drawn to an LA Slimes story like flies to sh*t since it will give them something else to whine about. Funny how they'll trust the LA Slimes or New York Slimes as gospel.
58
posted on
08/04/2005 10:06:47 AM PDT
by
COEXERJ145
(Tom Tancredo- The Republican Party's Very Own Cynthia McKinney.)
To: sharkhawk
Well, I certainly don't want the Dems to filibuster the Roberts nomination, but I do think that some of the dismissals of this pro bono work are really stretching credulity. I've seen nothing to suggest that there was anything remotely compulsory about Roberts' alleged participation. The only reasonable conclusion is that he chose to provide his expertise because at the very minimum he had no problem with the challenge (i.e., the gay activist position).
59
posted on
08/04/2005 10:07:27 AM PDT
by
AntiGuv
(reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away)
To: JohnnyZ
Oop, you already said that, sorry.
60
posted on
08/04/2005 10:07:54 AM PDT
by
k2blader
(Hic sunt dracones..)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-177 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson