[gopwinsin04]

El Rushbo even has the Slimes listening, maybe they like to hear themsleves torn apart everyday.

[kharaku]

If this Roberts guy gets in I' thinking long and hard before I vote for another 'righty' claiming he will correct the balance on the supreme court. Bush totally stabbed the base in the back with the nomination of this jerk.

[Last Dakotan]

I'm interested in hearing from the one man on this who hasn't said anything yet - Roberts.

[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.

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.

[nairBResal]

bttt

[Sen Jack S. Fogbound]

I understand that all lawyers (or least in some states) are required to take so many hours of pro-bono works each year in order to keep their license. They don't always have their choice of clients.

Just another attempt to pile on distorted dirt on Roberts.

[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.

[CedarDave]

Sean also discussed this yesterday; it rang alarm bells with him, too. I was interrupted and didn't get to hear Levin's take on it. Anybody hear and characterize what Mark had to say?

[Mike Darancette]

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

[HawaiianGecko]

 

 

	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.

!

 

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.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

1. Cheney is pro-gay
2. The Bush Administration did not fight the Lawrence decision.
3. While Bush supports the FMA, he is otherwise pretty pro-gay.

It would not surprise me if Roberts were pro-life and pro-gay just like the Vice President. How you square the Romer case with Roberts anti-judicial activist comments is beyond me, but it certainly is a strong possiblity that Bush would choose a Romer supporter. And may I remind everyone that Romer is now the case being used to argue for overturning state marriage amendments. That's exactly what happened when the federal activist judge overturned the Nebraska Marriage Amendment. The same arguments are being used as were used in Romer, only now they have precendent on their side. So Bush can't really support a FMA that would return the issue to state legislatures AND be indifferent on Romer.

[NonValueAdded]

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 :) )

[jbwbubba]

'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!

[RoseofTexas]

"The New York Times reported in Friday's editions"

The devil never rest does he(nyslimes)!!! Gosh I hate these people!

[Valin]

Right Wing Upset with Roberts Pro-Gay, Pro Bono Work

Thanks for letting me know. I wasn't aware I was supposed to be upset by this. I really have to start reading my E-mail.

[TheForceOfOne]

Roberts is only controversial because the left wants him to be controversial. What guarantee can we have about anything he would do once nominated. All the hubbub is irrelevant and if you let the left Bork Roberts they will and laugh at their unwilling accomplices who led the charge from the right.

[hobbes1]

El Rushbo even has the Slimes listening, maybe they like to hear themsleves torn apart everyday.

Maybe, but paying attention to this crap on Roberts is foolish.

Look at the key quotes in the article..

"John probably didn't recall [the case] because he didn't play as large a role in it as he did in others," Smith said Wednesday. "I'm sure John has a record somewhere of every case he ever argued, and Romer he did not argue. So he probably would have remembered it less.""
She said he gave her advice in two areas that were "absolutely crucial." "He said you have to be able to count and know where your votes are coming from. And the other was that you absolutely have to be on top of why and where and how the state court had ruled in this case," Dubofsky said.

The guy gave some collegial advice, yet they make it look like he got Romer turned over...fcol.

This is part of a ploy, to weaken Roberts right Flank, so when he is attacked from the left, his support is weak.

And Everybody's Resident Genius, ElRushbo, took it hook line and Sinker.

[longtermmemmory]

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.


This is why I am VERY susicious fo the story. In fact if you look at the NYSLimes article, they are desperatly trying to spin less than angry as "negative".

He was not attorney of record and he performed the function of pretend judge in practice.
Law firms often use pro bodo cases as a means of training attorneys with no cost to the paying clients. Since most cases settle before trial, getting a younger attorney to have in court time.

This case raises yellow flags about Roberts but it has double red flags about the media pushing THIS moot court help as if it was Roberts being lead counsel on a homosexual special rights case.

[You Dirty Rats]

So the LA Slimes puts out their story, some people on the right have a knee-jerk reaction, and now the NY Slimes says the Right is upset at Roberts? The same NY Slimes that admitted they made preliminary inquiries into the adoption of Roberts's kids?

It's funny, really. The Lamestream media has now admitted that their influence over the Left is worthless because the Left is out of power. So now they have decided to try and sow discord on the Right.

Unfortunately for them, the vast majority of us are far too perceptive to fall for this lame attempt at divide-and-conquer. Roberts will be confirmed. The 'Rats are still out of power. And the Lamestream media is reduced to trying to influence Rush Limbaugh - "The Most Trusted Man In America" (take that CBS and Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite -- BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!)

[GVnana]

Obvious out-of-context quotes.

[mtntop3]

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.