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.
I hope you never have any gay children.
I'm afraid I have no idea....
"The citizens passed a law"? Don't they have a legislature in Colorado?
If you *do* have a homo kid, and he manages to grow up while avoiding getting himself utterly mowed down by STDs or other deliberately chosen self destructive behavior... then odds on he will be wealthier than his straight siblings.
The case before the Supreme Court, Romer vs. Evans, dealt with a voter-approved 1992 Colorado initiative that would have allowed employers and landlords to exclude gays from jobs and housing.
"Howwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo"
Is that suppose to be coherent and/or informative?
And fancy that, they could before the initiative was passed, but for piecemeal interference by slobbering looie liberal nanny state gummints.
You're playing violins for the wrong folks, howler.
Howlin, homosexuality is a sexual deviancy. Is it really something that needs to be shoved down people's throats with a ton of draconian "gay rights laws" that force people to hire them, to rent to them, to subject their children to indoctrination by them, that toss the Boy Scouts off public lands unless they have gay scoutmasters, etc.?
The people of Colorado decided that they didn't want these gay agenda laws passed in their state, so they amended their state constitution to block any such laws. Unless the U.S. Constitution OBLIGATES states to pass such laws (and it doesn't) then how did that voter approved amendment get struck down by the Supreme Court? It got struck down because six socially liberal judges were offended by it, so they made up some way to get rid of it. Read Scalia's dissent and you can see how ludicrous their reasoning was.
The plain text of the 14th ammendment on this matter is terse in the extreme - stating simply:
If local governments in California were passing laws granting special favors to illegal immigrants, or if those in Utah were granting special favors to polygamists, and if the state passed a constitutional ammendment striking down such laws, that is within the states power.
The 14th ammendment does not mean that all conceivable classes of citizens (or non-citizens ;) can have their own special immunity from any state laws singling out their characteristic actions, whether favorably or unfavorably.
We must be careful to avoid and resist extending the scope of the 14th amendment "equal protection" clause. It is a two edged sword. If it can be used to uphold state laws or amendments deemed unfavorable to gays, it can also be used to uphold laws deemed favorable to gays (and abortionists - as indeed has been the case).
That's the real issue here. Not whether a particular state law or amendment is deemed pro or anti gay, but whether the "equal protection" clause of the 14th amendment gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction to override such state issues.
I think Scalia was right - it does not.
And I trust and pray that Bush made a good choice in Roberts. I am optimistic that he did.
For more comments on the unnatural extension of the 14th amendment to extend the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, see the fairly readable article UNNATURAL SELECTION
Yes, the Constitution allows a landlord not to rent to people based on their race or religion. Period.
Scalia was right to resist this extension of the "equal protection" clause.
I'll make this straightforward for you: The Constitution does not "allow" anything - - the Constitution ONLY tells GOVERNMENT those things that GOVERNMENT is allowed to do, and then for good measure goes on to specify some of the things that GOVERNMENT better not even THINK about doing. For example: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (That's the 1st Amendment.)
P.S. There is a wealth of information about the basics of the US Constitution, and it is all right there at your fingertips courtesy of the internet. Happy surfing!
Regards,
LH
Now, help me out here, is THAT an explanation or are we just playing word games now?
Heh.......that's the impression I got!
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.