No On Roberts (Joseph Farah Slams Conservatives For Being Bamboozled By White House Alert)

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.

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.

We must build momentum.

The more momentum we have, the easier it will be to confirm more and more openly conservative judges. Right now, we run the risk of shooting ourselves in the foot over what "might" happen, without looking forward to what WILL happen. Foolish.

I really hate to quote a dem in this matter but, we have nothing to fear but fear itself. Hold steady and we'll be pleasantly surprised.

The President could have gone nuclear on his first appointment. BUT, honestly I think he also took in to consideration the lives of the nominees and their families and just couldn't bring himself to set someone up for the kind of personal destruction it would bring. He couldn't send someone out to be cannon fodder. It's easy to forget that these are real people being attacked in the most personal ways.

Just a guess, but I think he really wanted to protect his nominees to the best of his ability. The adoption files are a case in point. They weren't looking for info on the adoption, they were looking for dirt in the background file on the Roberts.

Anyone who is not dumb as a brick would know to predict where the Justices are likely to fall on a given case, and to know the cases inside and out, so as not to be embarrassed by questions from the bench. If you think that advice like that was "absolutely essential" for her handling of the case, you are grossly ignorant of what it takes to conduct a case in the Supreme Court.

Knowing to expect questions and knowing what questions to expect are significantly different however.

BTW, the woman did a horrendous job at oral argument in my opinion. Not that Tymkovich bowled anyone over, but he at least didn't make a fool of himself. She stumbled throughout the ordeal. Lucky for her she had 6 votes going in, cuz no way in hell did her performance change any minds.

Since I have worked on 19 cases, now, in that Court, I assure you from experience that Roberts' advice in this instance was the legal equivalent of "run along, little girl."

Which cases have you argued before the Court?

Good post.

After an initial shock (like many Conservatives had) over the case, it has become apparent to me that his involvement was less than active.

It doesn't matter all that much, because the law was at BEST questionable as written.

One does not have to support an issue to have problems reconciling it with the Constitution. Clarence Thomas regularly rules in favor of the porn industry, yet we laud him as a strict constructionist. It has to do with how he reads the Constitution, not because of some alliance with or sympathy for the porn industry.

In the case of Roberts, we don't have a wink-and-nudge assurance from questionable Republicans like John Sununu with Souter. We don't have a wing-and-a-prayer hope that because O'Connor was an elected Republican, she'll be a Conservative. We have an impassioned and broad support from such admirable Conservative leaders as James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Mark Levin, et al. Some of them (like Dobson - who worked with him on cases) are even telling us they know what's "in his heart" based on their time working with him.

That's a far cry from the blind, hopeful quotes from right-to-lifers, et al, printed in Ann Coulter's last column about Souter.

We are dealing with a thin paper trail, granted. But we have a far different class of people willing to personally vouch for Roberts as a Conservative. That gives me a much better feeling than John Sununu's "trust me."

I also have a lot more faith in Bush's inner circle than even in Reagan's. I'd almost be willing to bet that the Bush/Rove/Gonzales team has long had a short list with 4-5 names of whom they would never need to ask certain questions because they already know the answers. Okay, it's a hunch, but tell me this isn't the most effective team we've ever had in the White House at screening people. Ashcroft, Rice, Bolton, Olson, etc. etc......I think they do their homework, even "off the record" homework.

John Roberts is no Souter in this regard: he's no stranger to the Conservatives in the White House. He's no stranger to the Pro-Life leaders; he's no stranger to hardcore Reaganites.

I like what Farah and Coulter are doing just like I liked what Buchanan was doing in 2000 - load the gun, cock it, and point it to the heads of the GOP. Then politely remind them how important certain issues/appointments are, and about that problem you've had with an itchy trigger finger.

But I find it harder to believe we have a stealth liberal this time. He has too much emphatic support, too many key people willing to vouch for him - people like James Dobson, who would give their lives for Life and Family issues. He's been in the Conservative circles for a while now; and the Senate doused him last time out of fears on his abortion views. I think that the White House knows he's a genuine Conservative, and I think the Dems know it, too. Why else resist him then like they do Priscilla Owens, Janice Rogers Brown, Pryor, and Pickering now?

This has little to do with my "toeing the White House line," and a whole lot to do with reading between the lines. I vote Republican almost EXCLUSIVELY for the courts, and I think this one is going to work out. The signs are just much better this time:

---He's a PRACTICING Catholic (not a secular Catholic).
---His wife RAN an actively Pro-Life Organization.
---They ADOPTED children (typically, a move of Pro-Lifers).
---He challenged Roe v. Wade - if we're to ignore his active, time-consuming work on this case for the Bush I administration, why are we to pay painstaking attention to his brief verbal advice on the Roemer case?
---He has the personal approval (not just PROFESSIONAL) of men like James Dobson, et al, as I have said before.
---He was voted DOWN by the Democrats previously out of fears on his abortion views, et al.
---It is far more likely to find a "paper trial" on activist judges, by definition. Most strict Constitutionalists will, by definition, not have much of a paper trial because they are simply APPLYING and INTERPRETING law.
---Nobody has yet to adequately point out to me ONE SINGLE HINT that this man is a liberal of ANY mold.
---He has spent nearly all of his time working for and representing Republicans and Conservative issues.

I just see no reason to oppose John Roberts right now. Not yet, at least.

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.