Posted on 08/05/2005 9:26:55 AM PDT by Dane
That Roberts did help the enemy defeat amendment #2 seems
verifiable -more troubling is the lawyerly attitude that
the attorney is to lie -or do whatever necessary to defend a
client and it's all good. The problem is our system as much
as it is the godless press. The nation is brought to desolation for we have chosen for our leaders men who do not rule in fear of God. We have rejected the foundations
and no longer allow taught the foundations of our law and Liberty.
True, in case of the President, he is usually above board even about issues I'll know we'll be in disagreement.
I won't even begin to get into my opinion of Senate Republicans.
In this instance from what I have determined, the main critisism seems to be he a) isn't an activist (which would comfort them with trail) b) won't inspire the bloodbath they wanted.
Well, one, an activist personality isn't necessarily a comfort. An activist feels temptation to use the law to satisfy their activism. In the case of Scalia and Thomas, they haven't fallen for the temptation, but I assume the right is happy for an activist because if they did fall for the temptation they'd err on a conservative side. Meanwhile I'm more interested in returning to approaching the Constitution with impartiality to the outcome so Roberts temperment suits me. I like Thomas, I like Scalia, I like Brown, but I like Roberts temperment too.
Second, and this is where I prove those that stated my opposition to the filibuster "pact" was out of disappointment we didn't get a fight, here I differ from those that want a fight. They wanted a brown not just because she had a paper trail, but because they knew they'd get a fight. They are dissatisfied Roberts is producing a fight that is more underground than above. I am not. I'm only interested in getting a Constitutionalist confirmed.
So? Did Scalia single out Roberts(he didn't).
I listened yesterday, and he did not appoint Roberts "Souter".
He listed why the case is one of concern for Constitutionalists, that is quite different. If you can prove otherwise, feel free, but I do have a 24/7 account and can easily check whatever you say against his own words.
That's a new one. Why don't you send it to the LA Times, it would be another bogus front page story for them, that a very small but very loud bunch of conservatives will lick up.
Non-thinking conservatives are as useful as Democrats.
Have you looked into what Roberts involvement actually was and length spent as the top litigator in the firm vs his other pro bono cases?
Roberts didn't bring this to the Surpreme Court, Scalia's dissent was on the merits of the Constitutionality not on Roberts giving 10 hours as opposed to a 100 on another case.
That is quite different from what??
BTW, your threats are laughable. I heard Rush clearly saying "questions need to be asked".
Fred Thompson up next on Rush to discuss this case.
You want to nitpick on how many hours he spent on the case?
It doesn't matter. It was voluntary work. He didn't have to do it, but he did.
Some of us would like to know why. And we'd like to know if he agrees with the SCOTUS's ruling, especially since he helped bring it about.
Which all conservatives have agreed from the start. Tell me how you get from that to Souter. This should be fascinating.
That is quite different from what??
:;sigh:: The Constitutionality of a case is not the same matter as what a person's involvement, limited as was, is in a case. To tie a dissent by Scalia on a constitutional matter into an attempt to make it a dissent On Roberts is ridiculous.
By same token, when Roberts dissented from Olsen (rightly) in another case that calls Olsen's cred into question? Absurd. And at least in the dissent from Olsen, Olsen was tied strongly to the case.
Having worked at a law office with 140 attorneys - I can assure people that an attorney does what they are told to do by a department head - Roberts would have had no choice in helping this group, and he would have had no choice in deciding if it was "pro bono" or not.
These issues [pro bono; taking certain cases] are office policy issues established by the partners of the firm, and are NOT determined by an individual lawyer who isn't a partner.
I believe the LAT is determined to drive a wedge between Roberts and the conservatives by trying to foment Roberts being a gay-friendly person (because the LAT people believe all conservatives are gay-haters).
Thompson is up on Rush. I have no more use for you but will answer one last question, and from that point you are on your own because I refuse to help you in the anti-Roberts agenda.
The number of time spent IS critical. Evidently you seek to dismiss because compared to his hours on cases he was heavily involved in, it undercuts you case. Further if you had done the reserch you claim, you'd note that as lead litigator in firm it is usual for them to contribute time when asked especially on SC cases. You'd know who the source of this story was, which would raise concerns for any thoughtful person.
And, lastly, to attempt to portray the vast majority that support Roberts as people that are against strong questioning is duplicitous.
Fred Thompson is saying pretty much the same thing...
You're the one who brought up Souter.
The Constitutionality of a case is not the same matter as what a person's involvement, limited as was, is in a case.
Ridiculous.
Does Roberts agree with the court's decision or not??
Since he worked on behalf of an anti-constitutional client, the question is more than appropriate.
And probably a lot of other resons...........but yes, the slimes of both coasts are trying a divide to conquer strategy over this nomination.
the sad this is many are falling for it.
I guess you didn't listen to Mark Levin' radio comments yesterday or read Ann Coulter's earlier comments on this guy.
I could be wrong, but I'm getting a sinking feeling that we are being duped again as conservatives and will find ourselves with another Souter.
Bush has the support in Congress to name a candidate with solid conservative credentials without going with a dark horse. A whole list of them were linked to this forum before the Roberts announcement.
What happened? Did McCain and the other seven dwarves get to him?
Thank you for your imput.
And, I fully agree obviously. The motive by the LATimes is quite obvious.
For the last time, please stop lying about my saying anything about Souter.
Questions should be asked, they always are of these nominees. I don't see why a stealth nominee like Roberts should be the first SCOTUS nominee to go unquestioned.
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.