Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Right Wing Upset with Roberts Pro-Gay, Pro Bono Work (NY Slimes Quotes El Rushbo)
PageOneQ.com/ New York Times ^ | August 5, 2005

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; johnroberts; romervevans; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-163 next last
To: gopwinsin04
Yes, he pointed out that this is a clear case of trying to drive a wedge just like the John F'n Kerry slap at Cheney's daughter.

A caller pointed out that this was actually a good example of how Roberts could set aside personal feelings and work the case at hand. I have a different take on why Roberts' actions concerning that case are important.

The initiative petition is a democratic construct in a constitutional republic. In most cases it is a simple "majority rules" action. As well, it is not an amendment to the state constitution but rather an alternate form of legislation. Florida is an exception to that statement and I'll cover that in a moment.

Up until Kelo, I thought there were certain enumerated rights that could not be stepped on by any branch of the government no matter how many laws they passed. The job of the Supreme Court would be to rule on the constitutionality of a law, protecting us from de Tocqueville's "game over" scenario in a democracy where a small majority discovered they could vote unlimited benefits to themselves. Initiative petitions are the end-around vehicle that makes such a move possible.

I suspect John was more interested in the slippery slope aspects of the Colorado case where a democratic majority put limits on the legislature without going through the amendment process and / or putting the state constitution at odds with the US Constitution. I think this is from the same cloth as "Roe was wrongly decided" idea, that the reasoning of a decision is what provides precedent and drives future decisions, i.e. creating a "right to privacy" out of thin air and since it wasn't enumerated, can mean whatever the current court decides it to mean.

Florida's petition process to directly amend the constitution has given us such gems as the pregnant pig clause and we're well on the way to creating the EU constitution before we get done. While I've supported a few of the proposed amendments, I still voted no since a) I don't believe they belong in the constitution and b) they are very hard to change when they prove to be unworkable. (No, Willie, I don't want that damned high speed boondoggle :) )

21 posted on 08/05/2005 7:57:24 AM PDT by NonValueAdded ("Freedom of speech makes it much easier to spot the idiots." [Jay Lessig, 2/7/2005])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kharaku
Oh no! Another who is going to forever withold their vote, but, unfortunately, will forever yap about it.



22 posted on 08/05/2005 7:57:54 AM PDT by G.Mason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Thrusher
Rush's actual concern was for the underlying legal point that Roberts' work undermined: he fought to judicially overturn a ballot initiative voted on and approved by the citizens. That is exactly the kind of judicial activism true conservatives don't want to see on any court, much less the Supreme Court, whether or not it has anything to do with homosexuality.

This is the underlying issue. Would this qualify as a red flag? IMHO,yes it would.

23 posted on 08/05/2005 7:58:40 AM PDT by afnamvet (Jet noise...The Sound of Freedomâ„¢)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #24 Removed by Moderator

To: sr4402

The New York times wants "Right Wing(ers to be) Upset with Roberts Pro-Gay, Pro Bono Work". That's what the NYT wants.
-------
More accurately, the NYT, the print media arm of the socialists and the Dem party, wants a liberal activist on the court (ANOTHER ONE), and not ANYONE that resembles a conservative. A justice that will break the law, and legislate from the bench to institutionalize socialism in the United States.

That is what they REALLY want. Gee I wonder where Hitlery is hiding on this? Isn't it revealing how she always HIDES when the Dems start looking stupid again???? Hmmmm ???


25 posted on 08/05/2005 7:59:26 AM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: G.Mason
I am sick and tired of trying to get friends out to vote on promises like 'the supreme court is sooo important' only to have a big middle finger displayed to those folks that were actually mobilized by that BS.
26 posted on 08/05/2005 7:59:42 AM PDT by kharaku (G3 (http://www.cobolsoundsystem.com/mp3s/unreleased/evewasanape.mp3))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette
 

 

 
How many here believe that a Partner of a prestigious law firm personally does most of the work on pro bono projects?

Good Question!

!

 

27 posted on 08/05/2005 7:59:57 AM PDT by HawaiianGecko (Liberals believe common sense facts are open to debate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Thrusher
The Slimes completely distorted Rush's take on the situation. He expressly said he was insulted by the media assumption that all conservatives are homophobes, and thus the Roberts' "pro-gay" pro bono work would turn conservatives against Roberts.

Why would Rush even validate the term "homophobe" with that statement? Homophobia was a term that used to be used clinically to describe persons who feared that they were gay. It has been widely misused to intimidate people who oppose the gay agenda -- politically and otherwise. Righties shouldn't validate the term by using it themselves. They just show off their homophobiaphobia (fear of being labeled a homophobe).

28 posted on 08/05/2005 8:00:19 AM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: gopwinsin04

'Wait a minute! This guy is doing pro bono work and helping gay activists?'

Okay so he did some Pro Bono work, as long as he didn't help Cher, then I would be very upset!


29 posted on 08/05/2005 8:02:42 AM PDT by jbwbubba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sr4402
Right Wing Upset with Roberts Pro-Gay, Pro Bono Work
That's what the NYT wants!

They are trying to get us to form a circular firing squad! Judging by some FReepers' comments, either the NYT is succeeding or there are some sleeper trolls around that are a lot better than the normal crop. I have also seen some really virulent anti-Roberts posts with suspiciously bad spelling and grammar posted by newbies.

30 posted on 08/05/2005 8:04:23 AM PDT by RebelBanker (To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: kharaku

You know, it's far-right whackos like you that make it difficult for conservatives like me!

If you read up on the case in which Judge Roberts was involved, you'd understand that it was a plain old civil rights case questioning the validity of firing (or not hiring) someone strictly because that person was gay. If you think this makes him a "gay boy", you are sicker than How-Weird Dean!

Personally, I give BIG props to Roberts for arguing the legal point regardless of the subject.


31 posted on 08/05/2005 8:04:24 AM PDT by ssaftler (Until recently, California had the worst Senators on the hill. Now we're down to number 4!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
Why would Rush even validate the term "homophobe" with that statement?

"Homophobe" was the term I used to try to concisely convey what Rush was saying during a lengthy monologue. I was not directly quoting him.
32 posted on 08/05/2005 8:05:03 AM PDT by Thrusher (Remember the Mog.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Sen Jack S. Fogbound
Apparently where former Senator and Vice President candidate Edwards practiced pro bono work was not required.

As for Judge Roberts, people should wait till he starts making judgments before blasting him. I would have liked a more "proven" originalist and conservative but Pres. Bush chose this man for good reason.

Look at Bush's track record with appellate Judges, most are hard-line conservative.
33 posted on 08/05/2005 8:05:25 AM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: kharaku
check out the post "Roberts defended the Constitution, not the gays" and do a little thinking before your knee-jerk reactions, that do nothing but collectively snowball into a meaningless chorus of nothing. But, unfortunately, mass misunderstandings actually cause change...so be careful.

If the mentioned post is true, and Roberts simply defended the right of gays to ask for housing, not that the landlord had to rent to them, then he did good work. Everyone deserves the right to ask.
34 posted on 08/05/2005 8:06:10 AM PDT by Swordfished
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Thrusher

Agreed but please note all the "true conservatives" including Rush who wanted to overturn the will of the voters in California on medical marijuana.


35 posted on 08/05/2005 8:06:12 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave
I was hoping to hear Laura Ingraham's take on this since she was a SCOTUS clerk, but she is out with chemo treatment today.
36 posted on 08/05/2005 8:06:39 AM PDT by gopwinsin04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: gopwinsin04; Last Dakotan
"This is troubling if the report is true that Roberts actually was integral in helping win this case. This gal could be overplaying his role in the case"

Of course they are. I mean, consider the original source of this story: THE L.A. TIMES. You know darn well they stretched what little facts they had to the breaking point to spin this as hard as they could to get this reaction from the right. In this article, the author states "What Perkins omitted from his newsletter was that in fact Roberts provided key strategies for fashioning a majority on the court." Now, where in the Sam Hill can a statement like that come from? It's just made up. The court is going to decide how it decides and not based on one attorney's prep of another for argument.

That said, I am not troubled by this for a number of reasons. Roberts worked for a large law firm. Roberts was an appellate specialist. His colleagues were working on an appeal. They consulted Roberts. He agreed. What was he supposed to say? "No way Jose, I'm not going to help a bunch of fags and dykes?" This story is agitprop. As such, I'm with LD on hearing what Roberts has to say, if anything. That the NY Times is going after his adoption papers and the left is dumping huge resources to keep him off the bench is my greatest comfort. That and knowing W and his faith and belief system...

37 posted on 08/05/2005 8:07:08 AM PDT by eureka! (Hey Lefties: Only 3 and 1/2 more years of W. Hehehehe....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: gopwinsin04
"The New York Times reported in Friday's editions"

The devil never rest does he(nyslimes)!!! Gosh I hate these people!
38 posted on 08/05/2005 8:07:18 AM PDT by RoseofTexas (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afnamvet
I disagree ... a simple majority ballot initiative is not an end run around the Constitution. Supporting such a move is what I'd call activism. Support the petition pertained to an enumerated right, such as the second amendment ... if a majority of lily-livered liberals in a small blue enclave passed an initiative petition to confiscate all firearms, the 2nd amendment be damned, would it be judicial activism to say, "sorry, you can't do that in that manner?" No, it would be upholding the constitution in classic strict-constructionist tradition. Don't play the Slime's game. This is exactly how they want to turn us against Roberts. Don't let the RATs define your terms! It isn't pro-gay to overturn a wrongly decided law that would open up all sorts of slippery-slope problems later on. Watch the bigger picture.
39 posted on 08/05/2005 8:07:27 AM PDT by NonValueAdded ("Freedom of speech makes it much easier to spot the idiots." [Jay Lessig, 2/7/2005])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Thrusher

Exactly. It was overturning a ballot initiative --- the people's voice doesn't cvount even when ballot initiatives are legal.


40 posted on 08/05/2005 8:07:37 AM PDT by squarebarb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-163 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson