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.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Actually, the 14th Amendment DOES allow a private employer to discriminate against blacks. The reason such discrimination is now illegal isn't due to the 14th Amendment, it's because of the civil rights laws passed in the 1960's by Congress, using the commerce clause as justification.
Define "as we see them"
Once more you make too much sense. Off with your head!
So what are they? Pretend?
you've allowed your emotions to override your good sense.
As opposed, of course, to you, who has a real handle on the "real" facts, huh? That kind of remark is nothing except BOILERPLATE worthy of any liberal I know.
Some of us are concerned that Roberts may ride his emotions to a similarly foolish socially liberal, family destroying destination.
As I said above, it it's not this, it will just be something else.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Where exactly did I say any different?
And the people of the state played right into their hands by voting in a law specifically classifying "them" as a group, or am I wrong about that, too?
You are making yourself like a silly slobber all over yourself leftie liberal. What sort of stupid "rights" could this concept embrace? The sky's the limit.
Everything beyond or in addition to that is a state of mind, a will o' the wisp.
And the day after that 50 bills outlawing it would be introduced in 50 state legislatures. The only question is how many would get voted on and pass.
???
What are you talking about? The 14th Amendment doesn't "allow" anything - - it only tells the states what they cannot do. (Did you attend government schools?)
And did not the citizens of Colorado pass a STATE LAW that would have allowed employers and landlords to discriminate against gays simply because they were gay?
What am I missing here?
My advise for you that if you know that someone is homosexual and you do not rent him because of that is to be ready in case he sues you because you are guaranteed to lose.
Membership in such a putative group can not earn special rights. The Supremes made the ludicrous mistake of looking at a real thing then ruling on its afterimage.
The 14th Amendment doesn't apply to private individuals.
Whether or not you would win if you sued a landlord for the various sexual issues you raise would depend on the laws in your state or locality. Given the fact that we increasingly disrespect propery rights, you might indeed win in some areas. But it wouldn't be due to the Constitution. There is no constitutional right to commit fornication on someone else's property, for example.
The law discriminates against thieves and murders as well, and of course it should.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough; we should ALL be subject to the same laws. I just have never believed in or like laws, such as this one or for instance the Hate Crime laws, that target, or "address" one particular group/class/segment, whatever you want to call it.
Are you not paying attention to what we're talking about?
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.