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.
BTW, Summa cum laude is top in the class, magna cum laude is with much praise but not "literally #1". Smart he may be but that is only an elemental credential as far as I am concerned.
We'll divide ourselves without any help, thank you very much.
"I may have missed what you meant, but do you agree with me that Homosexuals should not be discriminated against when it comes to housing, jobs, or eduction? I hope you do."
Of course they must be discriminated against. Your position is hideously wrongheaded. I am aghast to see such evil posted here.
And one report stated that Scalia himself supports Roberts.
If Roberts is good enough for Bork, Scalia and Olsen, why shouldn't he be good enough for us?
At the risk of being a target of your vitriol, I find the circular logic of this particular comment amusing. Discrimination based on appearance is ok but if based on moral disagreement it is constitutionally prohibited?
Farah is a Kook.
WND in a nutshell.
He better be.
Bush better be??
Farah is a fair weather friend to Conservatives at best.
What are some other examples? Just curious. I actually like some of what he says, though being a teacher, I cringe whenever I hear something about education from him. He doesn't exactly follow that "if you don't have anything nice to say" rule then (in some cases he is justified though).
Some conservatives will call anyone a liberal who doesn't agree with them, even if it is on a minor point.
This guy one time wrote that he hated all the church vandalism going on in his area. I wrote back that I TOTALLY agreed with him and was thankful that it hadn't happened much in my area. He wrote back and accused me of being a liberal because I said that it didn't have much in my area. Oh brother....
Do a search on "Roberts" right here on FR. There's all kinds of positive info about him right here.
Here's a tip: Look for the posts with the fewest responses. For some reason, the articles with the positive information on Roberts have been all but ignored. Imagine that.
Same goes for James Dobson. Guess Dobson's a lib. Plus Roberts worked for Reagan. Reagan must have been a stealth liberal as well.
Yes, since we all ad-lib once in a while, we are all liberals.:)
So Farah wants a date with Coulter,big deal.
Aren't they both married?:)
What he did in that case was routine for his firm. CSPAN played an '87 speech and Q&A session of Roberts speaking about the SC. He mentioned his firm using mock trials in which someone from the firm would play the role of an SC justice while the attorneys on the case would practice presenting their case.
He also said that SCOTUS is free to disregard or restrict precedent.
I suspect that the tactic by the left, played by the LA Slimes is to split conservatives on what the left considers to be a dangerous threat to their control of the courts.
As usual, conservative "purists" continue to be their own worst enemies as the eagerly chase the sock puppets held in front of them by the left.
As far as I was concerned, the pivotal issues in 2000 and 04 were terrorism and the court (I've given up on immigration).
Time will tell if our election sucesses will have any meaning.
Exactly--wait a minute, aren't those who hate all that he does supposed to be liberals?
Actually, I don't support President Bush on some things, maybe even many things, but I do respect the man and his office. I'm not going to throw a temper tantrum every time about him, but I'll address things that I agree and disagree with and do the best I can. We have enough liberals and two-year-olds who throw tantrums anyhow. We don't need more of them.
"The World's Only Reliable Newspaper." LOL!
Excuse me, but are "gay rights" as we see them "special rights," and not necessary?
Gays should have basic rights, but no "special" rights. They are NOT a minority group in my eyes. If that was the case, any of us could claim to be members of some minority group. We might as well have special rights for hazel-eyed, short, blond heterosexuals then.
Looks like you responded to me for someone else's comments.
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.