Posted on 08/07/2005 10:20:55 PM PDT by goldstategop
I don't know who makes me sicker – President Bush or the "conservatives" who continue to back him and his sell-out choice for the U.S. Supreme Court.
The conservatives eagerly jumped in to throw their support to the unknown John Roberts as soon as the choice to replace Sandra Day O'Connor was announced.
On what basis? The guy was a blank slate – like David Souter and Anthony Kennedy before him.
Then, last week, the Los Angeles Times broke the story that Roberts had volunteered his services – pro bono – to help prepare a landmark homosexual activist case to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
He did his job well. But he didn't serve the public interest. And he certainly no longer sounds like the carefully crafted image of a jurist who believes in the Constitution and judicial restraint.
The 1996 Romer vs. Evans case produced what the homosexual activists considered, at the time, its most significant legal victory, paving the way for an even bigger one – Lawrence vs. Texas, the Supreme Court ruling that effectively overturned all laws prohibiting sodomy in the United States.
There was some immediate concern expressed by conservatives following the story. But after being assured by the White House that everything was all right, they quickly fell into line, quietly paving the way for what I predict will be a unanimous or near-unanimous confirmation vote in the U.S. Senate.
Some conservatives even suggested the story in the L.A. Times was designed to divide conservatives. If that isn't a case of blaming the messenger! No, the point of the L.A. Times story was to bring the Democrats on board – to reassure them that Roberts is definitely in the mold of Souter and Kennedy.
As disappointing as Bush has been as president, I really didn't expect him to nominate a constitutionalist to replace O'Connor.
But the vast majority of establishment conservative leaders have no idea how they are being manipulated.
It's really sad.
They simply buy into the White House talking points, which say Roberts was merely being a good soldier for his law firm.
Roberts was a partner in the firm. His job was not in jeopardy if he excused himself from the case on principled moral grounds. That would have been the honorable thing to do – either that, or resign from a law partnership that took such reprehensible clients.
Now that would be the kind of jurist I could support to serve on the Supreme Court for a lifetime appointment.
Walter A. Smith, the attorney in charge of pro bono work at Hogan & Hartson from 1993 to 1997, who worked with Roberts on the Romer case, said Roberts expressed no hesitation at taking the case. He jumped at the opportunity.
"Every good lawyer knows that if there is something in his client's cause that so personally offends you, morally, religiously, if it offends you that you think it would undermine your ability to do your duty as a lawyer, then you shouldn't take it on, and John wouldn't have," he said. "So at a minimum, he had no concerns that would rise to that level."
Keep in mind the intent and result of this case. It overturned a provision of the Colorado Constitution that blocked special rights for people based on their sexual proclivities.
Roberts did not have a moral problem with that. He did not have a moral problem with helping those activists win a major battle in the culture war. He did not have a moral problem with using the Supreme Court to interfere in the sovereign decisions of a sovereign people in a sovereign state. He did not have a moral problem coaching homosexual activists on how to play politics with the court.
This was not just an "intellectual exercise," as some have suggested. Roberts' actions had real impact on the future of our nation.
He ought to be ashamed of himself as a self-proclaimed Catholic. In some dioceses, he would be denied communion for his betrayal of his faith.
He ought to be denied a confirmation vote by the U.S. Senate. But I predict he will get every Republican vote and nearly all of the Democrat votes.
Sad. Tragic. Pathetic.
Thanks! :-)
You deserve to be mocked if you think the 14th Amendment is any impediment to private choices.
Like the majority in Romer v. Evans, you've allowed your emotions to override your good sense. Some of us are concerned that Roberts may ride his emotions to a similarly foolish socially liberal, family destroying destination. If so, we don't want to follow him to the absurd result he is seeking.
Howlin is basically arguing that Eskimos need more ice.
"The homosexuals should not be discriminated against in housing, jobs, or education, and I think you agree on this because if you do not that it is not worth debating you."
Oh, really? So if someone says, "No one should be forced to associate with people who suffer from same-sex attraction disorder," then that person is just so extreme that there's no point talking to them?
It really is true. The right wing of the Republican Party today is about where the left wing of the Democratic Party was in 1960.
They had every single "protection under the law" that any other citizen of that state had. What they could not do is claim that their homohood earned them any extra protection.
Would you support a law that would force a Christian landlord to rent to a gay couple?
Sorry, but you and (apparently) ThePythonicCow are way off. The first thing you need to understand is that the US Constitution ONLY tells GOVERNMENT what it CAN do, and reiterates the point by going on to specify some things that government CANNOT do. (That's why the more or less redundant "Bill of Rights" was added.)
So, the 14th Amendment says, in part:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
See? It's all about what states cannot do. There's NOTHING about who a private citizen may choose to hire or discriminate against (although I will readily admit that scumbag liberal judicial activists may "discover" something in the 14th Amendment somewhere that they can twist and spin into a "law" which tells a private citizen entrepreneur that he cannot discriminate against gays in his hiring practices even if gays creep him [and maybe his clientelle] out).
Best Regards,
LH
have=has
It should be up to the landlord. It's his property.
I'm not asking ANYMORE about that, believe me!
You should be able to deny housing or work to any person just because you don't like the way they look, FGS, but not SPECIFICALLY because they are gay.
Forgive me for intruding, but this seems contradictory - no special laws for or against, but then saying it is illegal to deny housing because one engages in homosexual behavior. This affords people who engage in this behavior special rights. If you believe it is okay to deny housing based upon looks, which is, for the most part, an immutable characteristic like someone's skin color or gender, then why isn't it okay to deny housing to someone who engages in a behavior which one finds morally offensive, or just plain offensive - unmarried man and woman, smokers, people with certain jobs or criminal history, etc.
The Supreme Court has stated previously (prior to the abomination that is Lawrence that in order for a group to have legitimate "minority rights", it must demonstrate the following three things:
1) History of discrimination, evidenced by the lack of ability to obtain economic mean income, adequate education and deprived of cultural opportunities.
2) The class must exhibit obvious, immutable, unchangable or distinguishing characteristics that define them as an insular and discrete group.
3) The class must show they are politically powerless.
None of these 3 categories applies to homosexual behavior (as opposed to race, gender, or religious groups). We must keep in mind that what we are talking about here is a behavior, one that has historically been deemed sinful and immoral. Unless you want to fall into the category that humankind has been wrong for its entire existence up this point in how homosexual behavior has been viewed, then I don't see why you believe I shouldn't be allowed to rent out my basement to a man or woman who engages in this behavior.
Well, which part of the conservative party is discriminating against anybody who defends the druggies?
What I mean is that I don't know any who do -- so what am I missing?
Excuse me, but are "gay rights" as we see them "special rights," and not necessary?
And see if you can answer it without making yourself look petty.
No, I meant as in "malcontent" branch, "unappeasable" branch, or the "Holier Than thou" branch, etc.? :-)
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.