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 ...
The LA and NY Slimers hit Roberts with this bogus gay case and investigating his kids adoptions, the Bush-haters instantly decide Roberts is really Souter, they'll now not vote in 08 and let Hillary make SCOTUS appointments. Congratulations to the Bush-haters, you are doing the Slimers bidding.
Lookee here, everyone! The New York Times snagged a fool that believed their Slime.
See post #37. This is pure agitprop by the Liberal Times to undermine conservative support for Roberts, by taking some small facts and magnifying them.
Meanwhile, NYT is digging dirt and combing the 84,000 pages of notes Roberts wrote over the years for something controversial.
Hang tight, Roberts is a good conservative Judge, wait and see.
He has promised to nominate Justices who respect the Constitution. From everything I have seen, Roberts fits that very well. Nothing is certain, of course -- but to compare this to Souter the hermit is just plain wrong. Roberts worked in two Republican White Houses and clerked for Rehnquist. He's much better known that Souter ever was.
many judges did pro bono work for guardian ad litem programs by providing lawyer representation for children in trouble.
No need to cross to the ACLU dark side.
Based on much of the comentary that is being "fleshed out" piece by slow piece is that his help was not case specific and more in line with general lawyer training.
Does anyone have the bio of the lawyer who is claiming "crucial help"?
Stop confusing people with facts.
Why go anywhere near the liberals? We have control over the house senate and executive branches of government! Why don't we have a truly hard core conservative, someone outspokenly conservative? Someone whom the moment the liberals heard it they'd run home and cry to their wives (or boyfreinds, or cats, or whatever it is they have)?
This was not the time for a luke warm pick, the was the time for a killing blow!
Good point...though, as a I recall, Souter also worked for Republican administrations and had a reputation as a deregulator among some.
Apologies to XJarhead for using more facts to confuse people. It's a bad habit, but I'm working on it!
Anytime the NYT puts anything on its front page, it is inevitably anti-U.S., anti-Bush, anti-Republican, anti-conservative.
This article is manifestly intended to crease dissention among conservatives. And there will be some who fall for the bait as indicated in this thread.
Roberts has never been a gay-rights advocate. He was simply in this instance ASKED BY A PRIVATE LAW FIRM, of which he was then a member, to provide pro bono advice to this group.
An attorney is expected to have the professional capacity to develop arguments for either side of a case - this is standard practice beginning in law school. Attorneys in a law firm do not normally decline the firm's assignment request.
If this is the only instance of Robert's "sins", he's in pretty good shape. You have to consider such an instance relative to the entire record of Roberts which is manifestly outstanding.
The latest example:
The Bush administration wants to start the millitary commission trials of Guantanamo prisoners as soon as September after a federal appeals court last month (July) found the trial proceedings legal.
THAT THREE JUDGE-PANEL INCLUDED SUPREME COURT NOMINEE JOHN G. ROBERTS JR.
The panel reversed a lower court ruling that halted the proceedings last November on grounds that they violated due process and U.S. obligations under the Geneva Conventions.
This ruling by Roberts and the other two judges was, you can be DAMN sure, most unpleasing to the NYT.
"Why is it so hard to beleive the obvious? Bush sold out. Roberts is another Souter."
You have no factual or logical basis for this statement. Stop with the hysterics. This is a liberal tactic. Divide and conquer and cause Republican internecine warfare. You're falling for it.
Let's give credit where creidt is due -- the LA and NY Slimers are major-league master baiters!
LOL.
Judicial activism is what it's called when it goes against you.
It's hailed as the correct approach when it goes for you.
H"ow many here believe that a Partner of a prestigious law firm personally does most of the work on pro bono projects?"
Not most. But some. What's your point?
"I'm looking for a SC Judge that will interpret the law correctly without any prejudices. If "correctly interpreting" a law happens to help gays, so be it. I damn sure don't want him to misapply and abuse the law simply to promote a concept that I or anyone else might hold. I keep reading posts from many that seem to want to replace left wing judicial activists with right wing judicial activists."
Bump
"He promised to nominate someone like Scalia or Thomas."
Read the french fry case. That's where you'll see Roberts' judicial philosophy which is the one we're supposed to care about. Thomas or Scalia could have written that opinion.
seems a few "righties" are working in cahoots with the lefties, eh?
I think you hit the nail on the head dead on, if this is the best the liberals can come up with on Roberts after a 25 year legal career, than he will win confirmation easily.
The Senate is not nearly as bulletproof GOP as you make it sound, IMHO.
In 25 years practice, I never encountered a pro bono situation that the attorney did not choose. Pro bono is your voluntary, free time and you pick and choose it to do good things. For example, you might help a widow recover her life savings from a con man. Or you might try to advance an important constitutional principle. But attorneys pick and choose the pro bono stuff they work on.
That dog don't hunt.
I'm imagining a Slimes intern hunched over a radio for three hours trying to get a Rush quote that will fit the story.
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.