Right Wing Upset with Roberts Pro-Gay, Pro Bono Work (NY Slimes Quotes El Rushbo)

PageOneQ.com/ New York Times ^ | August 5, 2005

[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.

[Keith in Iowa]

It appears you want a judicial system to enforce your version of morality on the rest of society. I find that frightening.

The courts are not the place to change society's morality.

[zendari]

Because you have liberals, then you have the Moores, the Deans, the Boxers, and all the other radical leftists?

Abortions are dropping. Teen sex is down since 2000. The country hasn't recovered fully from the damage done by the hippie generation in the '60s, but your defeatist attitude does nothing good.

[The Red Zone]

I wonder if Bush even realized this about Roberts.

[The Red Zone]

Geez Louise this fellow is supposedly a staunch Catholic. He should have said "I can't".

[zendari]

Your prejudgment of Roberts is equally appaling. The man hasn't yet to issue a single court decision.

[HawaiianGecko]

 

 

	"The courts are not the highest law in our system of government; the United States Constitution is. " That sounds cool from a jingoistic point of view, but you really are essentially word-smithing at this point. The courts are not law, never have been and never will be.  The U.S. Constitution is worthless without someone to interpret it (courts), and higher, final arbiters... appellate courts and USSC. I have a question for you. Are you complaining because the courts have given special status to any group or given special status to gays. Or are you complaining that Roberts helped an attorney prepare to be the best advocate for his case in front of the Supreme Court? "Secondly, the Supreme Court had (obviously) not ruled yet on this issue when Roberts provided his help. So he was not defending established judicial precedent, he was helping the plaintiffs to create a new one." Of course Roberts wasn't defending established judicial precedent. He wasn't defending anything. He was simply helping an attorney put forth his best argument in front of the USSC. That is commendable beyond belief. That's like accusing Staples of being pro-gay because they sold legal pads to Roberts. Are you suggesting that in the argument of any case at this level, that it is NOT wise for both parties to be totally 100% prepared to voice their argument to these nine wise sages?  Don't you want the court to decide base upon the best information available on both sides?  That is what Roberts was doing, simply preparing them for the questions that the court would be asking them.

!

 

"The courts are not the highest law in our system of government; the United States Constitution is. "

That sounds cool from a jingoistic point of view, but you really are essentially word-smithing at this point. The courts are not law, never have been and never will be.  The U.S. Constitution is worthless without someone to interpret it (courts), and higher, final arbiters... appellate courts and USSC.

I have a question for you. Are you complaining because the courts have given special status to any group or given special status to gays. Or are you complaining that Roberts helped an attorney prepare to be the best advocate for his case in front of the Supreme Court?

"Secondly, the Supreme Court had (obviously) not ruled yet on this issue when Roberts provided his help. So he was not defending established judicial precedent, he was helping the plaintiffs to create a new one."

Of course Roberts wasn't defending established judicial precedent. He wasn't defending anything. He was simply helping an attorney put forth his best argument in front of the USSC. That is commendable beyond belief. That's like accusing Staples of being pro-gay because they sold legal pads to Roberts.

Are you suggesting that in the argument of any case at this level, that it is NOT wise for both parties to be totally 100% prepared to voice their argument to these nine wise sages?  Don't you want the court to decide base upon the best information available on both sides?  That is what Roberts was doing, simply preparing them for the questions that the court would be asking them.

[Brilliant]

I am sorry that I have to be the one who breaks the news to my fellow conservatives, but even a "strict constructionist" is not going to rule that gay marriage is unconstitutional. It's a state issue, and the Court will defer to state law. The only federal issue, really, is whether one state must recognize the other state's gay marriages. And that issue is one that the conservatives will probably lose in the end. The Constitution's full faith and credit clause has already been held by the Supreme Court to require the states to recognize each other's marriages. The only question is whether the Court should make an exception for gay marriages, which seems very remote to me. Certainly, there is nothing in the Constitution to suggest there should be an exception.

[kharaku]

He worked for special rights for gays, that's night the kind of justice Bush pledged to pick.

[kharaku]

And where is? The courts have been changing morality for the last 100 years. I'd say a good place to reverse that would be the courts. I mean considering it started there, where else do you think would be the right place to start changing it back?

The court sold out the constitution by interpreting all men being equal but some more so than others.

[zendari]

Setting aside Roberts for a moment (who hasn't even been confirmed), which President in recent history has a better record than Bush 43?

[zendari]

This list right here:

# Terrence W. Boyle (4th Circuit; May 9, 2001)
# Priscilla Richman Owen (5th Circuit; May 9, 2001)
# David W. McKeague (6th Circuit; Nov. 8, 2001)
# Susan Bieke Neilson (6th Circuit; Nov. 8, 2001)
# Henry W. Saad (6th Circuit; Nov. 8, 2001)
# Richard A. Griffin (6th Circuit; June 26, 2002)
# William H. Pryor (11th Circuit; April 9, 2003)
# William Gerry Myers III (9th Circuit; May 15, 2003)
# Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit; July 25, 2003)
# Brett M. Kavanaugh (D.C. Circuit; July 25, 2003)
# William James Haynes II (4th Circuit; Sept. 29, 2003)
# Thomas B. Griffith (D.C. Circuit; May 10, 2004)

[kharaku]

With regard to judicial picks, or with regard to overall performance.

We know Reagan's feelings toward who he picked.

[Sloth]

That sounds cool from a jingoistic point of view,

Do you even know what jingoism is? Hint: it's nothing to do with what we're discussing.

but you really are essentially word-smithing at this point. The courts are not law, never have been and never will be. The U.S. Constitution is worthless without someone to interpret it (courts), and higher, final arbiters... appellate courts and USSC.

That tells me everything I need to know about you. Living document crap, etc. What's the point of having a friggin' Constitution if the real final arbiter is the whim of some judge? By the way, I'd like you to cite the portion of the U.S. Constitution that charges SCOTUS with its interpretation. I realize you think the Constitution is little more than toilet paper, but just humor me.

I have a question for you. Are you complaining because the courts have given special status to any group or given special status to gays.

No. My biggest complaint is that some so-called conservatives are so beholden to Bush and/or the GOP that they'll defend this horrible SCOTUS ruling just because a GOP nominee was tangentially involved.

Don't you want the court to decide base upon the best information available on both sides? That is what Roberts was doing, simply preparing them for the questions that the court would be asking them.

I have heard conflicting information on Roberts' involvement. But in any case, I want courts to decide on the basis of the BEST information, yes. 'BEST' means most accurate and most relevant, not what's most effective for a given side. "Have you stopped beating your wife?" may be an effective courtroom strategy, but that doesn't make it legitimate or ethical.

[HawaiianGecko]

 

 

	"Do you even know what jingoism is? Hint: it's nothing to do with what we're discussing." Yeah, it means more than what is flung around recently about patriotism. I used it as "chauvinism", before you accuse someone of ignorance, you should check for other uses that you apparently haven't been exposed to. I received my PE license about the time you were being born and was a product of an educational system that we weren't complaining about, so watch your ignorance. The fact that you don't know all the definitions of a word in no manner reflects on me. "What's the point of having a friggin' Constitution if the real final arbiter is the whim of some judge? By the way, I'd like you to cite the portion of the U.S. Constitution that charges SCOTUS with its interpretation." First, you used 'whim', not me. The short answer is: Without someone to interpret the constitution, it has NO MEANING. There is truly a reason for the existence of the written word. You seem to think that the constitution somehow magically emanates it's meaning. How do you know what it says if you haven't read it and "interpreted" it's meaning? Are you so egotistic that you are the only person that can "divine" the meaning of it's words. (BTW, there are multiple meanings of divine, look 'em up)  What are judges for if not to interpret the law?  What do you do in the courts in Arkansas? Wave a dead chicken over the constitutional parchment, chant a few incantations, and voila a decision pops out? " I'd like you to cite the portion of the U.S. Constitution that charges SCOTUS with its interpretation." That's simple, Article III, Section 2....  The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State... Do you see the part that says ALL CASES, ARISING UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION, LAWS OF THE U.S. etc. "No. My biggest complaint is that some so-called conservatives are so beholden to Bush and/or the GOP that they'll defend this horrible SCOTUS ruling just because a GOP nominee was tangentially involved." You apparently don't read very well, and that in itself may explain your problem. I'm not defending the USSC decision on Romer/Evans, and I have clearly stated so in a previous post to you. It appears that you are again divining meaning without evidence. Such as: I am beholding to President Bush. That I am defending this horrible SCOTUS ruling.  You have no clue what my opinion of President Bush is, as I have never stated it to you. I do not agree with the ruling in Romer as post #130 states... "If you mean that in your opinion the case was interpreted incorrectly (which I agree), that is a matter of debate and that is exactly what Roberts' side and their opponents were doing;" Maybe you should hire John Roberts to interpret that sentence for you! I haven't mentioned to you whether I believe in strict construction or living document, yet you unabashedly assume the latter. Once again... WRONG.  " 'BEST' means most accurate and most relevant, not what's most effective for a given side." Gee, what a naive position!  I'm 'diving' here, but your idealistic scheme for political and judicial perfection seems to propose (as in suggest, not an offer of marriage) that both sides of a case "really know" the correct outcome, and that one side knows that it is arguing it's case under false pretenses. That's just not true. It is precisely why we have judges interpret the laws.  I have no problem with you being an interpreter of the Constitution, I'm just waiting for the President to appoint  and the Senate to confirm you. Your egotism to even think you are in league with past, present and future USSC Justices and constitutional lawyers is humorous. Poking around in Google and reading anecdotal briefs that support your opinion just doesn't cut it. It's like me explaining Poly-e-Caprolactone Composites with certainty. Your reading of the Constitution and my reading of it appear to be the same. The difference is that you are SURE your view is the only and right one, while I'm not.

!

 

"Do you even know what jingoism is? Hint: it's nothing to do with what we're discussing."

Yeah, it means more than what is flung around recently about patriotism. I used it as "chauvinism", before you accuse someone of ignorance, you should check for other uses that you apparently haven't been exposed to. I received my PE license about the time you were being born and was a product of an educational system that we weren't complaining about, so watch your ignorance. The fact that you don't know all the definitions of a word in no manner reflects on me.

"What's the point of having a friggin' Constitution if the real final arbiter is the whim of some judge? By the way, I'd like you to cite the portion of the U.S. Constitution that charges SCOTUS with its interpretation."

First, you used 'whim', not me. The short answer is: Without someone to interpret the constitution, it has NO MEANING. There is truly a reason for the existence of the written word. You seem to think that the constitution somehow magically emanates it's meaning. How do you know what it says if you haven't read it and "interpreted" it's meaning? Are you so egotistic that you are the only person that can "divine" the meaning of it's words. (BTW, there are multiple meanings of divine, look 'em up) 

What are judges for if not to interpret the law?  What do you do in the courts in Arkansas? Wave a dead chicken over the constitutional parchment, chant a few incantations, and voila a decision pops out?

" I'd like you to cite the portion of the U.S. Constitution that charges SCOTUS with its interpretation."

That's simple, Article III, Section 2....  The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State...

Do you see the part that says ALL CASES, ARISING UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION, LAWS OF THE U.S. etc.

"No. My biggest complaint is that some so-called conservatives are so beholden to Bush and/or the GOP that they'll defend this horrible SCOTUS ruling just because a GOP nominee was tangentially involved."

You apparently don't read very well, and that in itself may explain your problem. I'm not defending the USSC decision on Romer/Evans, and I have clearly stated so in a previous post to you. It appears that you are again divining meaning without evidence. Such as: I am beholding to President Bush. That I am defending this horrible SCOTUS ruling.  You have no clue what my opinion of President Bush is, as I have never stated it to you. I do not agree with the ruling in Romer as post #130 states... "If you mean that in your opinion the case was interpreted incorrectly (which I agree), that is a matter of debate and that is exactly what Roberts' side and their opponents were doing;"

Maybe you should hire John Roberts to interpret that sentence for you!

I haven't mentioned to you whether I believe in strict construction or living document, yet you unabashedly assume the latter. Once again... WRONG. 

" 'BEST' means most accurate and most relevant, not what's most effective for a given side."

Gee, what a naive position!  I'm 'diving' here, but your idealistic scheme for political and judicial perfection seems to propose (as in suggest, not an offer of marriage) that both sides of a case "really know" the correct outcome, and that one side knows that it is arguing it's case under false pretenses. That's just not true. It is precisely why we have judges interpret the laws. 

I have no problem with you being an interpreter of the Constitution, I'm just waiting for the President to appoint  and the Senate to confirm you.

Your egotism to even think you are in league with past, present and future USSC Justices and constitutional lawyers is humorous. Poking around in Google and reading anecdotal briefs that support your opinion just doesn't cut it. It's like me explaining Poly-e-Caprolactone Composites with certainty.

Your reading of the Constitution and my reading of it appear to be the same. The difference is that you are SURE your view is the only and right one, while I'm not.

 

 

[zendari]

A better record regarding Judicial picks, not overall presidency performance.

Reagan picked Sandra Day Oconner, remember?

[Sloth]

Yeah, it means more than what is flung around recently about patriotism. I used it as "chauvinism", before you accuse someone of ignorance, you should check for other uses that you apparently haven't been exposed to.

As a matter of fact, I did check before I posted, and none were applicable. Your comment here makes me think you don't know the proper definition of 'chauvinism' either.

First, you used 'whim', not me. The short answer is: Without someone to interpret the constitution, it has NO MEANING. There is truly a reason for the existence of the written word. You seem to think that the constitution somehow magically emanates it's meaning.

Not unless plain English is somehow magical.

Are you so egotistic that you are the only person that can "divine" the meaning of it's words.

No, any honest person moderately well-versed in English can do so. And any two such readers, unknown to one another and reading it independently, will understand it essentially alike. I don't deny the possible existence of some ambiguous language here or there, but 99% of the Constitution is perfectly straightforward.

What are judges for if not to interpret the law? What do you do in the courts in Arkansas? Wave a dead chicken over the constitutional parchment, chant a few incantations, and voila a decision pops out?

Judges ensure that proper procedures are followed regarding evidence, indictments, etc. For example, a trial judge can assess whether testimony is relevant to the case, or evaluate whether police/prosecutors followed the proper steps in obtaining a warrant. They get to exercise judgment regarding what is 'reasonable' in matters like probable cause or civil damages. And yes, sometimes interpretation of LAW is necessary, due to incompetent legislators who couch their statutes in confusing or even contradictory language. That may even be true of some state constitutions. It is not true of the U.S. Constitution. It's about as hard to interpret as a stop sign.

That's simple, Article III, Section 2.... The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State... Do you see the part that says ALL CASES, ARISING UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION, LAWS OF THE U.S. etc.

Yes. The Court has jurisdiction over CASES. UNDER the Constitution. Not over the Constitution itself.

You apparently don't read very well, and that in itself may explain your problem. I'm not defending the USSC decision on Romer/Evans, and I have clearly stated so in a previous post to you.

Yeah, I know. I read it. That's why I didn't say that you were doing so. Try responding to things I actually write, instead of what you imagine.

I haven't mentioned to you whether I believe in strict construction or living document, yet you unabashedly assume the latter. Once again... WRONG.

No, you already said the Constitution is meaningless without judges to interpret it. It's difficult to imagine a more succinct summary of the 'living document' view. Strict constructionism necessarily assumes that there is a correct meaning to the document before anyone ever reads it, and in spite of whether a given person understands it or not.

Gee, what a naive position! I'm 'diving' here, but your idealistic scheme for political and judicial perfection seems to propose (as in suggest, not an offer of marriage) that both sides of a case "really know" the correct outcome, and that one side knows that it is arguing it's case under false pretenses. That's just not true. It is precisely why we have judges interpret the laws.

It is very, very frequently true (particularly in cases of constitutional law) that one side knows that their position is unsupported (and often is diametrically opposed) by the clear language of the Constitution. There are situations where both sides are acting in good faith, e.g., a criminal trial where prosecutors honestly believe the evidence convicts the defendant but the defense attorneys honestly believe it's insufficient to prove guilt. That's what juries and judges are for.

The difference is that you are SURE your view is the only and right one, while I'm not.

If it is so hard to understand written English that we need professional 'interpreters' for us, then why are Supreme Court decisions issued in written English? By your logic, these rulings have no meaning until someone reads & interprets them, and then there are bound to be many valid but contradictory readings of their decisions. We'd need another layer of interpreters to tell us what SCOTUS said, and then another set to tell us what the interpreters said, and so on.

This is the absurdity that results from your contention that plain English is so mysterious that only experts can grasp it.

[kharaku]

And regretting not picking someone with a better known record, knowing that how can Bush make the same mistake?

[zendari]

Roberts has yet to be shown as a mistake.

[kharaku]

Roberts pro-bono helped gays get special privilege in Colorado. How much bigger mistake do we need to see before that point is conceded???

[zendari]

A mistake as a Supreme Court justice would be a start.