Right downplays Roberts' gay aid

Washington Times ^ | 8/6/5 | Charles Hurt

[republicofdavis]

"I have tried to listen to this unstable cretin, but I don't think I am alone when I say that he and those who agree with him can go fornicate themselves with an iron stick!"

You're not

[republicofdavis]

"If you can't find yourself moved by his emphasis of a "border, language, culture" credo then I have no idea what you're doing on FR."

I'm all for the credo. I just find him tedious, and supremely arrogant without any justification.

Can I still stay on FR?

[republicofdavis]

"This is stupid propaganda further by stupid people in the media."

And gobbled up by . . .

[Voteamerica]

His name wasn't even on the documents! Goodness this is a sad joke. It was one case an eon ago, not the focus of his career.

[republicofdavis]

"It is deeply disturbing."

Only if you allow it to be. There are many threads all over FR with thoughtful explanations from people of the same mindset as you who know this is just a divide and conquer attempt from the left, over an issue that has no bearing on Roberts' judicial philosophy.

Or you can just be disturbed.

[jaydubya2]

It's ironic that the libs are bashing him because he was once not conservative enough.

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

"Dr. Michael Savage"

I have tried to listen to this unstable cretin, but I don't think I am alone when I say that he and those who agree with him can go fornicate themselves with an iron stick!

His main talking points are the following:

Stop illegal immigration
Stop the ACLU who is promoting a communist agenda
Expose the homosexual assault on our children
Expose politically correct hate crime prosecution
Expose Islamofascism
Faulting the Bush administration in its war in Iraq. Talk about his dog Teddy
Reminisce about his father when growing up

What do you take issue with? Why?

[tomahawk]

I'm an attorney and I do pro bono work.

I have never, nor would I ever, represent homosexuals seeking to overturn a law denying them special privileges enacted by the voters through an initiative.

[tomahawk]

I agree with you. That summarizes Savage well.

He is very intelligent, but spouts off sometimes on things he does not mean literally. It's called venting.

[republicofdavis]

"I'm an attorney and I do pro bono work.

I have never, nor would I ever, represent homosexuals seeking to overturn a law denying them special privileges enacted by the voters through an initiative."

And that's your prerogative. And it doesn't have anything to do with what your philosophy might be as a judge.

I am an attorney too. If I were put on the Supreme Court, I would be exactly the kind of judge most on FR would want, an originalist. Yet I would be torn apart by people on FR because I have previously represented parties that would not be approved of here. People need to understand that a person can be an advocate without that having any impact on how they might see their role as a jurist.

[darkangel82]

Every time Savage makes a good point, he then goes on one of his insane rants, which cancels out everything else he has to say.

[guitarist]

It would be nice to hear him say that. But it probably isn't true. He didn't necessarily agree with the anti-democratic, pro-homosexual side he helped, but he didn't disagree enough to say, "Sorry, not on this one." It's unfortunate.

[CyberAnt]

I said this on another thread and it bears repeating here:

"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).

Remember, Roberts did not own the law firm, nor was he a partner. This would mean that although he had the prestige of working for that firm .. he would do as he was told .. the same as any other employee."

[finnman69]

Savage is a world class a-hole. He should go back to hyping vitamins.

[CyberAnt]

At which lawfirm ..??

[CyberAnt]

"Walter A. Smith Jr., then head of the pro bono at H & H: John probably didn't recall it because he didn't play as large a role in it as he did in others..."


According to the above info .. Roberts was not even head of the pro bono dept - so there!!

[JRios1968]

I hope he is grilled till he is so brnt we see "who he really is" I am on Schumer side when he says Roberst needs to be forthcoming on his responses to his personal and judicial views. I want answers.

So, you want Roberts to prejudge cases on the stand. You want Roberts to be put through the Schumer litmus test...the very same litmus test that neither Ginsburg or Breyer had to go through. Amazing how the rules change when it's a Republican nominating Justices...but even more amazing to see RINOs like you carrying Schumer's water. Why do the Dims need Specter, Snowe, Chaffee or Voinovich when they have you?

[DeepSouthRedneck]

When Roberts took the Colorada case, he WAS a parnter. He could easily have said no to the request. He didn't just have a "guiding conversation" with the Lambda attorney, he actually participated in a moot court hearing, taking the role of Scalia.
This guy's late marriage age, the adoption of "beautiful" children, his wife's active participation in "Feminists For Life" all sound a little too perfect for me (kind of like "Tom Cruise"- he doth protest too much.