Replies

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.

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.
------
Exactly. But saying Roberts FOUGHT for this is not really accurate in that it is noted he "provided advice" in the matter. But the issue is correct and the concern is correct -- in that Roberts HAS ALREADY STATED that he supports "settled law" -- which in this case, was overturned by judicial action, which Roberts provided advice into.

This IS THE REAL ISSUE.

Correct.

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.

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).

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

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

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.

The Slimes completely distorted Rush's take on the situation.

Surprised!...Not!

The only true measure of Roberts will be after he is approved by the Senate. If he votes along the lines of Scalia or Thomas, it will be a conservative victory. If he turns out to be another O'Connor or Kennedy, the conservatives will have been tricked again, as they were with regard to Supreme Court selections by both Reagan and the elder Bush. Many conservatives held their noses with regard to Administration inaction on illegal immigration and deficit spending in the hope that President Bush would nominate an advocate of original intent and an opponent of judicial activism to the Supreme Court. If Roberts turns out to be a supporter of stare decisis with respect to the Supreme Court decisions in the last 60 years, the disappointment will be enormous.

President Bush is a lame duck; however, I believe Jeb Bush has Presidential ambitions. Jeb Bush's ineffective response with regard to Terri Schiavo did not endear him to social conservatives. He does not need to alienate them further if he intends to run for President in 2008 or 2012.

OTOH, the Christian Right is not much feared anymore. I was watching a Coral Ridge Ministries TV show on a Christian station last night and noticed that D. James Kennedy was looking quite old. Then I remembered that his more famous contemporaries, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, were both on the far side of 70. It is a rare parachurch organization, or for that matter, political action organization that survives the death of its founder. Without a succession plan, the Christian Coalition, Concerned Women for America, etc., will be of interest only to historians 20 years from now.

The Left accomplished its successes in this country because they recognized the importance of generational succession, a remarkable feat inasmuch as leftists do not believe in an afterlife. The Old Left of the 1930s and 1940s literally spawned the New Left of the 1960s and 1970s. The New Left penetrated academia, the mainstream media, the entertainment business, and government far more deeply and thoroughly than did their Communist and socialist fathers.

Long term success in restoring the American republic and traditional values will require a multigenerational effort.