 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
||
 |
 |
 |
!
Posted on 08/05/2005 7:39:15 AM PDT by gopwinsin04
The New York Times reported in Friday's editions that radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, James Dobson of Focus on the Family, and Collen Parro of the Republican National Coalition for life spoke negatively about the latest disclosure of stories that surround Judge Roberts legal career.
Reports of Roberts involvement, [in a gay rights case] generated outrage and disbelief. 'There is no question that this is going to upset people on the right,' Rush Limbaugh told his listeners.
'There is no question that people on the right are going to say, 'Wait a minute! This guy is doing pro bono work and helping gay activists?'
James C. Dobson, chairman of the evangelical group Focus on the Family, said Judge Robers work in the case 'was not welcome news for those of us who advocate tradtional values,' though he said that he did not necessarily mean that Judge Roberts had shared the plaintiffs views.
Colleen Parro, executive director of the Republican National Coalition for Life, and one of the few conservatives to raise questions about Judge Roberts, said his work on the case 'was cause for more caution and less optimism about his nomination.'
The conservative American Family Association's president, Tony Perkins, attempted to downplay the significance of Roberts contributions to the case by writing: 'We are told that Roberts role was apparently limited to providing a few hours of participation in a moot court procedure as he routinely did for all of his clients.'
What Perkins omitted from his newsletter was that in fact Roberts provided key strategies for fashioning a majority on the court.
The strategies were described by lead attorney Jean Dubofsky as the successful strategy she used to win the case, according to the Times.
(Excerpt) Read more at pageoneq.com ...
Bulletproof no, but in an all out fight I suspect the GOP would win. If we should have an all out fight over anything shouldn't it be the court?
Surprised!...Not!
As I understand it, this case wasn't Roberts's case -- it was another partner's case. That other partner asked for help from Roberts. Isn't it perfectly normal for partners to help each other out with their respective areas of expertise, even on pro bono work?
Why should I, the NYT is doing a fine job of it themselves. Why should I do it for them. They look like A$$es and probably will take the dems down with them. Their subscribership is way down and their accuracy is down too. So why get excited, I can just wait on the sidelines and watch the house burn down since it doesn't cost me one worthless paper.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
!
Why should I
Because you're supposed to be upset. The NY Times says so therefore it MUST be true. :-)
It sooo obviously stinks, it's bad even for the Slimes.
The troubling part isn't his level of participation, but if he had a role in choosing to accept the case.
Your comments reflect a misunderstanding of the Romer case. Here is a link to the case:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/romer.html
May I respectfully suggest that you read it--particularly Scalia's dissent. I think you will conclude that it is one of the most far-reaching acts of left-wing, constitutional, judicial activism in the past 50 years.
I agree with your comment about the 'gay boy' rhetoric. But that is not really the issue. The issue is: will Justice Roberts feel free to make up rights and put them in the constitution or will he feel bound by the constitution as it is? His actions in the Romer case give me real pause about Justice Roberts.
According to some earlier in the thread, it sounds like Roberts didn't have much of a choice about taking this case at his big firm.
But this underlines the problem in Romer v. Evans. In the hypothetical you pose, there is an amendment to the constitution that directly addresses the issue--the right to keep and bear firearms. So it is not judicial activism to apply the constitution as written. But in Romer, the case Judge Roberts helped in, there is not any constitutional provision setting up homosexuals as a specially favored class that you cannot discriminate against. The supremes in Romer invented that right and put it in the constitution. That is judicial activism.
There are no sure things, but there are better bets than Roberts. He could have nominated someone like Luttig, Garza or Alito, who has a long and uncontroverted record on the bench and has never waivered from their conservative judicial philosophy. Instead, we get a game of Russian roulette.
I worked in a big firm, a medium firm, and solo. It works the same everywhere. The attorney chooses what pro bono to do. In the medium firm, I was asked to participate in pro bono work another attorney was doing to force the boy scouts to accept homosexual members. I politely declined and told them why. It was never raised again. At that time, I was a lowly associate.
Okay, I give up. Roberts assisted with this case, not because he had any ethical or fiduciary obligation to do so, but because he sincerely desired to advance the homosexual agenda in the courts.
President Bush is a lame duck; however, I believe Jeb Bush has Presidential ambitions. Jeb Bush's ineffective response with regard to Terri Schiavo did not endear him to social conservatives. He does not need to alienate them further if he intends to run for President in 2008 or 2012.
OTOH, the Christian Right is not much feared anymore. I was watching a Coral Ridge Ministries TV show on a Christian station last night and noticed that D. James Kennedy was looking quite old. Then I remembered that his more famous contemporaries, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, were both on the far side of 70. It is a rare parachurch organization, or for that matter, political action organization that survives the death of its founder. Without a succession plan, the Christian Coalition, Concerned Women for America, etc., will be of interest only to historians 20 years from now.
The Left accomplished its successes in this country because they recognized the importance of generational succession, a remarkable feat inasmuch as leftists do not believe in an afterlife. The Old Left of the 1930s and 1940s literally spawned the New Left of the 1960s and 1970s. The New Left penetrated academia, the mainstream media, the entertainment business, and government far more deeply and thoroughly than did their Communist and socialist fathers.
Long term success in restoring the American republic and traditional values will require a multigenerational effort.
Don't focus on the nature of the plaintiffs but rather the nature of the case. Otherwise, you are playing the Slime's game. The petition said "the legislature shall not pass any law" and in effect, was amending the constitutional clauses pertaining to the proper role of the legislature. That is what was wrong with the petition. If allowed to stand because it was deemed "good law" in that it suported marriage, then the next 50 petitions would be equally valid if they supported something vile. It is a technical argument but that is what strict constructionalism is all about. The decision didn't establish a favored class per se and you cannot say that was Roberts' intent by any stretch.
What we need is someone who is clear that their purogitve is simply to implement what congress has made law and to ensure that new congressional laws do not attempt to override the constitution.
I am not convinced that preventing perverts from applying for 'special pervert status' is strictly forbidden in the constitution. Frankly the notion of anyone applying for special status is unconstitutional. The only fault I can find with the law is that it's not broad enough.
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.