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.

[kharaku]

Because the last time this was allowed to play out we got Justice Souter.

At least then it had the excuse of a democrate majority which had to be appeased.

There's no excuse this time!

[CedarDave]

Actually, I support the Times in investigating details of the Roberts' adoptions, but only to the extent of documenting that nothing occurred outside normal legal channels (I wouldn't expect there would be). I would also expect the Times to perform the same research for a Hitlery appointee (HA!). However, if they tried to get into sealed records, that goes beyond the line.

[Thrusher]

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.

This is an excellent point worth serious consideration. The framers of the Constitution did not want a pure "majority rules" democracy, which one one could argue is just another version of monarchy, at least in terms of its affects on the minority individual. Perhaps a strict constructionist -- knowing more about the facts of the particular case than most of us on this forum -- would have a different opinion on the situation at hand.

Just a thought.

[RebelBanker]

If you can predict how Judge Roberts will vote as a Supreme Court Justice with such accuracy, we really need to talk about some stock picks. Or at least who will win the World Series this year.

IMHO, Roberts has a reasonably solid conservative track record and the liberals are trying really hard to stretch one very minor situation into a wedge issue.

[kharaku]

Bush had the time to do a background check, and could easily have come across this. Freepers don't have access to that kind of background check so it took some time to find out.

[hobbes1]

ME too. But these talking windbags need to think Chess, and stop talking checkers.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Again, this latest dustup has *helped* Roberts among liberals who now recognize that he will probably be another Souter...thus ensuring his confirmation The GOP majority will never stand up for principle, so you don't have to worry about an attack on the "right flank." Won't happen! After all, these are the same Senate "conservatives" who loyally supported Bush's proposals for creased farm subsidies, transportation boondogles, and socialized medicine via prescription drugs.

[You Dirty Rats]

Once confirmed, will join the Souter faction of the court.

I am afraid you will be sadly disappointed. Roberts is not going to join Souter. You'll have to find something else to bash the President about.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Nothing is certain in life but the evidence is piling up. BTW, this isn't the only time Roberts worked pro-bono to expand big government. He also worked pro bonon to invalidate duly enacted welfare time limits.....but hey if you feel comfortable with taking a stand that he should be on the court for life, that's your business.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Nothing is certain in life but the evidence is piling up. BTW, this isn't the only time Roberts worked pro-bono to expand big government. He also worked pro bonon to invalidate duly enacted welfare time limits.....but hey if you feel comfortable with taking a stand that he should be on the court for life, that's your business.

[HawaiianGecko]

 

 

	[Bush had the time to do a background check, and could easily have come across this. Freepers don't have access to that kind of background check so it took some time to find out.] This is precisely why I place my trust in the President and his decision. He has real information, we have what people with agendas feed us.

!

 

[Bush had the time to do a background check, and could easily have come across this. Freepers don't have access to that kind of background check so it took some time to find out.]

This is precisely why I place my trust in the President and his decision. He has real information, we have what people with agendas feed us.

[gopwinsin04]

Ann Coulter was on O'Reilly last night and didn't commment on the Roberts case on the segment I saw. (which was probably smart)

She supposedly is going to be on Hannity radio today to discuss the issue.

[WOSG]

Right! Rush was saying "see, this is the media trying to drive a wedge between Roberts and social conservatives ..."

... and lookee here, that is exactly what NYT is doing, trying to use Rush himself to help their agenda but without admitting that RUSH SAID THEY WERE DOING IT.

Rush also pointed out the news of them investigating Roberts' children's adoption records. Leave no stone unturned, and surely it will all end up in the inbox of one of Schumer's staffers.

The agenda is *SO* obvious. ... Puke. NYSlimes, the Old Grey Hag.

[WOSG]

"It was reported that Roberts played a 'Scalia like' role in the moot court procedure questioning the lawyers in oppositional questions they might face from SCOTUS in the courtroom."

Cool. He's ready to be Scalia!

[AmishDude]

Another caveboy speaks.

You're saying he'd rather have this legal mind?:

[gopwinsin04]

PJ O' Rourke says Roberts would be a nominee that could join with the Scalia faction on the court very quickly.

We may be surpised by this guy.

[Austin Willard Wright]

I won't have to search too hard. Let me see: helping to socialize medicine via prescription drugs, overturning the will of the people of California on medical marijuana, increased farm subsides, protectionism, transportation boondogles, nationalizing airline searches, increased education spending, endorsing affirmative action in college admissions at the University of Michigan....Perhaps you will be the one who has to do the searching to find something positive....because Bush is the most pro-big government president since Nixon!

[G.Mason]

Hang in there. All may not be what the grim reapers are claiming.

[NonValueAdded]

Thanks for repeating my point. Unfortunately "support the petition..." was a typo that should read "Suppose the petition..."

[GVnana]

Obvious out-of-context quotes.