Faith Hope and John Roberts (conservatives are accepting Roberts on a "leap of faith")

beliefnet ^ | Aug 5 05 | David Kuo

[churchillbuff]

Looking at this nomination and the way that things are shaping up, it is hard to escape the feeling that the “no more Souters” vow has faded. John Roberts public record doesn’t demonstrate him to be the kind of candidate conservatives have advocated for the past decade. He may well prove to be the anti-Souter; he may be a true stealth conservative. But the fact of the matter is that what we don't know about him outweighs what we do know.

Given these reservations and conservative vows to never again support a stealth nominee, why are most conservatives veritably drooling about Roberts?

...[snip]

the big reason conservatives have signed on to the Roberts nomination is George W. Bush’s own evangelical faith in Jesus Christ. As Jay Sekulow told me recently, “We know the president’s faith is authentic, real, and complete. We know the kind of person he promised to deliver to the Supreme Court. We have absolute faith in him.”

That one article of faith, more than any other, explains social conservative comfort with Judge Roberts. They believe that George W. Bush’s evangelical Christian faith makes him one of them. He can tell a good conservative Christian when he meets one. James Dobson, the Focus on the Family founder, backed Roberts enthusiastically, a crucial development for the White House. And his support hinges, in no small part, on his own faith in the president's faith.

... And so, when President Bush promises to appoint someone in the mold of Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas to fill any high court vacancies, conservatives trust that he will.

It is a monumental leap of faith for them, because the Supreme Court has been the source of more anger and frustration for religious conservatives than any other single institution for the last generation. From banning school prayer to enshrining abortion as a constitutional right to legalizing homosexual practices, the court has been the bane of their existence. All the sex-filled, violence-laden, celluloid romps that Hollywood has ever produced combined don't add up to a single one of these court decisions.

And instead of being given a judge like Edith Jones or Michael McConnell or Janice Rodgers Brown who they know has a set jurisprudence like Scalia or Thomas, they are pinning their hopes on John Roberts in large part because their evangelical president has looked into Roberts' past, his heart, his mind, and his eyes and pronounced him the fulfillment of his promise. They will soon find out whether that faith was well placed.

[churchillbuff]

They will soon find out whether that faith was well placed."""

Unfortunately, if we find out the faith was not well placed, it will be too late.

[churchillbuff]

As Jay Sekulow told me recently, “We know the president’s faith is authentic, real, and complete. We know the kind of person he promised to deliver to the Supreme Court. We have absolute faith in him.”

Mr. Seklow, put not your trust - or "absolute faith" - in princes.

[sgtbono2002]

So who do we back?

When he was first nominated he wasnt liked by the usual suspects. Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Now they are telling us he really isnt a conservative, but I havent heard Kennedy of Reid say he is ok.

Who knows what evil lurks in a mans mind. The Shadow do. But where is the Shadow and why isnt he speaking out?

[churchillbuff]

When he was first nominated he wasnt liked by the usual suspects. Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi and Harry Reid. """

Not true. Reid and Feinstein said from the first they liked him. In the latest issue of the New Yorker - the article is online, on their website - there's an interview with Reid and he extolls Roberts to the high heavens. Suggests he'll be another Souter.

[churchillbuff]

As Jay Sekulow told me recently, “We know the president’s faith is authentic, real, and complete. We know the kind of person he promised to deliver to the Supreme Court. We have absolute faith in him.” """"

What was it the Washington Post once said about evangelicals, - that they're naive and "easily led"? Sekulow doesn't do anything to dispel that characterization by saying he has "absolute faith" in the president - and it doesn't matter that there's precious little "paper trail" proving that Roberts is a committed conservative.

[ex-snook]

Future GOP creditability is on the line.

[tessalu]

I would not trust the faith of any person who is trying to push the homosexual agenda on the good people of the USA.
Anyone trying to turn us into sodomites can not be sincere about God and his will for man kind.

[freeangel]

I'm not "veritably" drooling about Roberts and I'm ultra conservative. However, I do think the President has the right to nominate whomever he wishes and, short of some horrible misdeed, has the right to have him appointed.

[ex-snook]

"I do think the President has the right to nominate whomever he wishes and, short of some horrible misdeed, has the right to have him appointed."

He sure does. And those who voted for him have the right to remember if they are 'Souterized'.

[pepsi_junkie]

Now they are telling us he really isnt a conservative, but I havent heard Kennedy of Reid say he is ok.

This thread may be of interest.

[Gelato]

There's something that disturbs me about Roberts' answers to the Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire:

When the other branches of government exceed their constitutionally-mandated limits, the courts can act to confine them to the proper bounds. It is judicial self-restraint, however, that confines judges to their proper constitutional responsibilities.

In other words, Roberts believes the Supreme Court is the policeman over the other branches of government, but when it comes to the courts, each judge polices himself. Does that sound like a system of equal branches, where each is bound by the Constitution? I wonder if Roberts shares Rehnquist's view that a judge is insulated from impeachment for his decisions and that Congress should not limit the jurisdiction of federal courts.

Another thing that bothers me is that instead of mentioning the Constitution as the authority, Roberts says that cases are to be decided according to the "rule of law." To a judge, that's the same thing as saying the "rule of case law." Roberts indeed revealed a reverence for case law when he said:

Precedent plays an important role in promoting the stability of the legal system, and a sound judicial philosophy should reflect recognition of the fact that the judge operates within a system of rules developed over the years by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath.

It's likely Roberts will vote on the right side of many cases, like his former boss Rehnquist. However, I'm not so sure he has even that much of a solid foundation under him. Sandra Day O'Connor was often said to have no philosophical anchor, little consistency, and was easily swayable to the wrong side. I think of her when Roberts says:

A judge must have the humility to be fully open to the views of his fellow judges on the court.

Of course a judge should have an open mind. But to be "fully open" implies there are no strictures upon a judge, as though he would start each case anew without any jurisprudential theory (except "precedent”). No matter if he is right on a case here or there, it's never good when a judge substitutes open-mindedness for judgment based on the actual words of the Constitution.

I hope Judge Roberts proves his right-leaning critics wrong, and does not find himself seduced by the enticing arguments of his left-leaning colleagues. We shouldn't have to waste time wondering--but we are. I suspect Ann Coulter was right, and Bush should have picked someone with a more obvious backbone.

[nmh]

He's a social liberal. Soft on punishment and a gay advocate. He has defended them in lawsuits. He is NO conservative in the social arena. He's really a humanist. Don't be fooled!

[Always Right]

Oh puh_leeez. Roberts is as conservative as they come. He is no friend of gays or abortion. Roberts will make Rehnquist look like a liberal. I know Roberts is a great nominee.

[Mo1]

Mr. Seklow, put not your trust - or "absolute faith" - in princes.

You've convinced me .. For now on, I am gonna throw my full faith and trust in what ever the liberals at the Washington Post say

rolling eyes

[nmh]

"Oh puh_leeez. Roberts is as conservative as they come. He is no friend of gays or abortion. Roberts will make Rehnquist look like a liberal. I know Roberts is a great nominee."

Oh Oh puh_leeez" yourself. It might be hard to imagine but you are not "Always Right".

I've read this elswhere too. WND is problematic but other reputables sources have cofnrimed this. It was more handy to copy/paste from WND since they are RIGHT about this particular issue.

Roberts donated time
to 'gay rights' activists
Homosexuals won anti-bias ruling with help of high-court nominee

---

Posted: August 4, 2005
2:32 p.m. Eastern

Supreme Court nominee John Roberts

John Roberts, President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court, donated his time to homosexual activists, helping them win a landmark anti-bias ruling from the high court in 1996.

According to a report in the Los Angeles Times, Roberts helped represent "gay rights" activists as part of his law firm's pro bono work. While the nominee did not actually argue the case before the high court, several lawyers familiar with the case say he was instrumental in reviewing filings and preparing oral arguments.

The Supreme Court ruling was decided on a 6-3 vote, with Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissenting. Bush has repeatedly said he would nominate Supreme Court justices in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. The ruling in Romer v. Evans struck down a voter-approved 1992 Colorado initiative that nullified "gay rights" measures in the state.

The Times points out Roberts has stressed that a client's views are not necessarily shared by the lawyer who argues on his or her behalf, so the nominee could claim he did not agree with the homosexual activists he helped.

Walter A. Smith Jr., then head of the pro bono department at Hogan & Hartson, told the paper Roberts didn't hesitate to take the case: "He said, 'Let's do it.' And it's illustrative of his open-mindedness, his fair-mindedness. He did a brilliant job."

Roberts did not mention the Romer case in a 67-page response to a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire released this week.

"John probably didn't recall [the case] because he didn't play as large a role in it as he did in others," Smith told the Times yesterday. "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."

Jean Dubofsky was the lead lawyer for the homosexual activists and a former Colorado Supreme Court justice.

"Everybody said Roberts was one of the people I should talk to," Dubofsky is quoted as saying. "He has a better idea on how to make an effective argument to a court that is pretty conservative and hasn't been very receptive to gay rights."

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.

Dubofsky says in practicing for the high-court arguments, Roberts played a Scalia-type justice, peppering her with tough questions.

"John Roberts … was just terrifically helpful in meeting with me and spending some time on the issue," she told the Times. "He seemed to be very fair-minded and very astute."

In the Romer dissent, Scalia, joined by Rehnquist and Thomas, said, "Coloradans are entitled to be hostile toward homosexual conduct." Scalia added that the majority opinion had "no foundation in American constitutional law, and barely pretends to."

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45607

Bush is trying to pull a fast one. Roberts is a humanist with a social liberal bent. The only thing social concervatives see is that he is against abortion.

[Always Right]

Bush is trying to pull a fast one. Roberts is a humanist with a social liberal bent.

I have $1000 that says you are dead wrong.

[bkepley]

'Bush is trying to pull a fast one. Roberts is a humanist with a social liberal bent.'

Yeah, Bush is obviously a mole planted in the White House by the Democrats to return the Supreme Court be majority Liberal. I guess this means Bush I was in on it. I'm still working on the angle here. Bush I got himself appointed to the CIA. Must be some sort of connection there. Oh these guys are good. Very good.

[Always Right]

Yeah, Bush is obviously a mole planted in the White House by the Democrats to return the Supreme Court be majority Liberal.

Since Karl Rove pulls all the strings, perhaps it is Rove who planted Bush. The liberals just hate Rove to cover his real agenda...

[bkepley]

Reckon Bolton is really a one-worlder?