John Roberts Helped Advance the Homosexual Agenda (Editorial)

Blue Mass Group ^ | 8/4/05

[beezdotcom]

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. That also means that a GAY landlord cannot keep Heterosexual people from renting an apartment.

This is NOT the hill you want to "die" on.

[gopwinsin04]

It looks like they may not have known, that's what scares me.

[pollyannaish]

The is left is finally figuring out that they are not going to win by directly stating who and what they are. If we are not careful, they are going to play us.

Hillary's "concern about borders" and their candidate in this week's Ohio race are a good example of the strategy. On the Roberts nomination the only hope they have is to have "super conservatives" oppose his nomination.

IMO, the "house divided strategy" holds lessons for ALL of us on the right in these latest fights.

[gopwinsin04]

Could Roberts refuse to answer a Santorum question about the case citing the Ginsburg rule? (if the case is indeed pending)

[AntiGuv]

Yes. Jean Dubofsky was the lead attorney for the successful challenge to Amendment 2 by Evans, et al. That's who Roberts evidently worked with, and that was the side that Kennedy agreed with.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

And by the time we know it might well be completely past too late.

One more lefty bitch on the court is the final shovel of dirt over the coffin of this republic.

[dmw]

Why does Ann Coulter's name come to mind?????

[AntiGuv]

Yes, of course he could refuse. In fact, since the challenge is imminent, he should refuse. If he offers a prejudgment he will have to recuse himself.

[k2blader]

Thanks!!

Bookmarking this thread.

[gopwinsin04]

Annie will have something to say about this in a column, I am sure.

[sefarkas]

Seven of nine current Justices were appointed by Republican administrations. No amount of pre-screening will tell us where the wishy-washy nominees will end-up on the right-left spectrum of the Supreme Court.

[gopwinsin04]

Rush talking about this now.

[k2blader]

I better tune in to Rush today. Hope he doesn't let me down on this one..

[gopwinsin04]

Rush says he will go more in detail to this issue after the break.

[dmw]

In a nutshell, what is he saying about it?

[mickie]

"The White House may well not know anything about his work in the case".

Well they sure as hell should have known........we don't want another Sutter!

[gopwinsin04]

Caller from Hollywood totes the Ann Coulter line on potential Souters and Rush agrees.

[firewalk]

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.

bttt

[mdefranc]

"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." - gopwinsin04

That's certainly what Republicans said about the Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter nominations. Are those justices to your taste?

[Labyrinthos]

Handt his particiapation in this case been mentioned on the day of nomination?

Who cares. Under the rules of professional ethics, an attorney can't turn down a case he or she is otherwise qualified to handle, simply because the attorney disagrees with the client's position.