No On Roberts (Joseph Farah Slams Conservatives For Being Bamboozled By White House Alert)

World Net Daily.com ^ | 08/08/05 | Joseph Farah

[goldstategop]

Joseph Farah points out John G. Roberts is hardly a strict constructionist. The point of the Los Angeles Times story about his pro bono work on Roemer v Evans wasn't to divide conservatives but rather to reassure the Left the guy is a safe candidate in the mold of Souter and Kennedy. A stealth candidate. Can conservatives name ONE thing Roberts has done to prove he's committed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution? If he gets a unanimous vote in the Senate we may find we have been had. So in fact if conservatives have been bamboozled by the White House, they'll have no one to blame for the resultant fiasco but themselves.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[claudiustg]

So what would you suggest?

[goldstategop]

Like Ann Coulter wrote, it would have been better to have a candidate with proven conservative bonafides. At least the fight would have been worth it. We don't know anything about Roberts and have no idea how he'll vote when he gets on the court. Let's pray Farah and the skeptics like Ann are wrong about him.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[MJY1288]

Mark Levin, Justice Robert Bork, Ted Olsen and many other stellar Conservatives back Judge Roberts and I'll take their advice long before I would Joseph Farah's

Farah is a fair weather friend to Conservatives at best.

[Howlin]

I don't know who makes me sicker –

Farah makes me pretty sick.

[Howlin]

A stealth candidate.

That is utter rubbish.

The FIRST thing that was on the mind of this White House was to make sure that this guy WAS NOT a stealth candidate.

But Chuck Schumer thanks you for your help!

[Saynotosocialism]

I think that all that we have worked for is at risk with this nomination. I think that Farah is correct. If he is correct, then what a bitter blow. However, I can't believe that Bush could or would be so "off the mark". Why or how could he be?

[MJY1288]

Ann Coulter is justified in her concerns, but why does she ignore the "Proven" Conservatives who know Judge Roberts. I think Ann Coulter is one of the best on our side, but I think she is letting the nightmare of Suitor cloud her judgment

[JCEccles]

Do you agree with the SCOTUS decision in Romer v. Evans? With Lawrence v. Texas?

[Howlin]

To: Mo1

Exactly how much time to Roberts spend on this case ?? I thought I heard on the radio it was about 6 hours .. that ain't a awhole of time for a lawyer in a case this big

Yes, I'd like to know the specific number of hours too. But aparently it wasn't a lot. In fact it was less than other cases. I saw this quote:

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...

Also, it was described in one article that Roberts time spent was actually playing the role of Justice Scalia in a mock SC hearing.

Imagine that, Hogan and Hartson's Pro Bono department (H & H being the firm that Roberts worked for), asks Roberts to help out by playing Scalia in a SC hearing. Sounds to me like Roberts is a Scalia-type and the Pro Bono department knows it.

146 posted on 08/06/2005 12:07:34 PM EDT by FreeReign

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[FreeReign]

Exactly how much time to Roberts spend on this case ?? I thought I heard on the radio it was about 6 hours .. that ain't a awhole of time for a lawyer in a case this big

Yes, I'd like to know the specific number of hours too. But aparently it wasn't a lot. In fact it was less than other cases. I saw this quote:

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...

Also, it was described in one article that Roberts time spent was actually playing the role of Justice Scalia in a mock SC hearing.

Imagine that, Hogan and Hartson's Pro Bono department (H & H being the firm that Roberts worked for), asks Roberts to help out by playing Scalia in a SC hearing. Sounds to me like Roberts is a Scalia-type and the Pro Bono department knows it.

[tomahawk]

If Roberts is not a conservative Justice, Pres. Bush is a failure.

He better be.

[Howlin]

Do you agree with the SCOTUS decision in Romer v. Evans? With Lawrence v. Texas?

You know what I agree with? I agree that if it wasn't those two cases, you'd have found something ELSE to trash him with. Period.

[goldstategop]

Well, he's still is right - what do people know about his core values and his real beliefs? That's exactly the point. Its significant he worked in a case in which the SCOTUS later overturned the will of the people, which later gave us legalized sodomy anf may well establish gay marriage as the law of the land. The point is if he objected to advancing the liberal agenda, he didn't have to. I have a doubt about a person committed to judicial supremacy. Granted, its just one case but for the Left, that may be all they need to know he won't be a threat to them when he gets on the bench.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Howlin]

I think that all that we have worked for is at risk with this nomination.

C R A P.

[MJY1288]

Yup, That's what I concluded as well

[goldstategop]

No, I don't. Conservatives better make sure their congressional representatives don't ask him softball questions. If it turns out he may be a judicial activist in disguise, the hearings are the time to find out about it.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Howlin]

what do people know about his core values and his real beliefs?

You mean what do you know about him?

Or do you take George W. Bush to be a fool?

[West Coast Conservative]

Not to mention Roberts has the complete support of Dobson and the Family Research Council.

Roberts is a solid Reaganite. Just because he did some pro-gay legal work ten years ago, doesn't mean he isn't a conservative.

[Howlin]

Frankly, I am stunned at people who I thought had sense falling for this crap.

These ARE the Democratic talking points -- only it's people who say they are conservatives mouthing them.

[goldstategop]

Can you really guarantee he will vote like Scalia and Thomas? That's a big assumption to make. Scalia and Thomas had a long paper trail and a proven history of conservative activism behind them before they got on the Supreme Court. In contrast, Roberts is a blank slate. Any one can read anything they want into him.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)