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.
Could be? May be?
Next.
Coulter has gone out on a limb for her contrarian position. Informing herself would put that position in jeopardy.
I generally like Ann, but she is allowing her pride to cloud her judgment on this.
I agree completely.
Ah come on, how dare you. That would be like asking Travis to give up his, IMO, heroin like addiction to posting the same old, same old, anti-Bush gif over and over again on any thread he posts to.
Were you an attorney and a "friend" had asked you to do an amicus brief in favor of partial birth abortion, would you do it?
Why not? It is because you have a serious moral objection to partial birth abortion. Why didn't Roberts just bow out because his values system would not allow him to defend sodomites?
Did he do an amicus brief?
Do you actually know what his roll was?
er......role.
Farah despises George Bush even more than the liberals do, and he would trash anyone that Bush nominates. In his perfect world, O'Connor's Supreme Court seat would go vacant until after Bush was impeached and removed from office.
Roberts was the chief appellate expert in the law firm. He was asked by a partner to help out in a moot court case, where he would play Scalia.
He obliged, do you give the finger to a business collegue, when asked for help?
Also a question that I have asked on previous threads, who do you believe more the LA Times and liberal media, or GW Bush?
Don't know anything about the Romer case, but a conservative can support the result in Lawrence since it dealt with what people do in the privacy of their homes. Regardless of one's position on homosexuality, conservatives should be drawing a bright line where government attempts to regulate consentual, non-harmful conduct ocurring in a private area like a bedroom.
And if Roberts was playing Scalia for a mock hearing, he really didn't help "prepare" the case. Stick with Levin's assessment of Roberts.
So now Farah is in favor of the FILIBUSTER!! He didn't call for Roberts to be defeated, he's calling for DENIAL OF A VOTE!! As I suspected, this nut and those who support him are allies of the 'Rats.
But I predict he will get every Republican vote and nearly all of the Democrat votes.
At least the man has enough of a grip on reality to understand that not one Republican Senator agrees with his nonsensical tripe. I guess that means the Freepers on this thread who agree with Farah and disagree with the President and ALL of the Republican Senator think that every one of them are RINOS!! Classic. All 55 Senators are RINOS, eh? Because THEY are all RINOS and YOU are the only "true" Republicans, what's your next move -- threaten to leave the Party? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Brown, Pickering, Estrada, Wilkinson, Owen...
When big law firms do pro bono work they assign the task to a first or second year lawyer. But they provide the assignee with help from their senior lawyers.
It is in the best interest of the law firm to provide as much assistance as they can because it is providing training to their newer lawyers, i.e. making them better lawyers.
Since Roberts was a member of the firm, it was in his best interest as well - in strengthening the firm. I suspect that that is just what Roberts provided.
It has been said that he participated in a moot court. Based on his comprehensive experience with the Court, he was very well qualified to do that. That's how law firms work. It certainly wasn't Roberts' fault that the opposing lawyer was not as well prepared.
That's how I read it.
The other point is that law firms are partnerships and clients are clients of the FIRM, not just one of the lawyers in the firm. If a lawyer had to conduct an ideological litmus test before deciding if he or she was willing to provide help within the firm for someone else's case, he or she wouldn't last very long.
I still support Roberts, though his involvement in this gay agenda case worries me a little. I guess we'll now have to wait and see, and keep our fingers crossed. He certainly seems to be a constitutionalist based on his written record. This Colorado thing is the only item in his record that worries me. Scalia's dissent in Romer makes it very clear that the six judge majority in that case went FAR outside the scope of their constitutional authority, in order to advance a political agenda (gay).
Roberts will likely win the vote of every GOP senator, but so did Kennedy, O'Connor, Stevens, and Souter. And, in fairness, so did Scalia. So really we'll just have to wait until Judge Roberts takes his place on the court to see what kind of judge he'll be. We'll have to keep an eye on things for years, because often these GOP judges drift leftward over time after starting off as constitutionalist.
My firm does similar mooting all the time, and if asked to be on the board, you participate.
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.