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.
The Constitution was SILENT on women's suffrage until the 19th Amendment was ratified. That silence meant that the issue of women's suffrage was left to the states. States were free to give women the vote, or not to give them the vote. They could also enshrine either of those positions in a state constitution, if they chose to do so.
Shame on you.
Worse=Worth
That is the worst explanation I have ever seen. The heart of the Constitution is freedom, life, liberty for all. Free speech for all, including voting because it is an expression of freedom of speech.
"What evil?"
The evil of pretending that a terrible mental disorder is perfectly fine, and on that basis (1) encouraging sufferers not to get treatment; (2) exposing the young to clear and present danger by giving SSAD sufferers access to them; (3) requiring normal people to associate with them, in a country that is supposed to ensure freedom of association...
I could go on, but that's much more than enough.
"You guys have a problem with the mere existence of homosexuals."
Yes, and schizophrenics, pyromaniacs, people with bipolar disorder...I have a problem with anyone suffering from a mental disorder, and think we should encourage them to get the best treatment available.
You see, there really isn't any such thing as "a homosexual." Everyone is fundamentally heterosexual. Some people, however, develop same-sex attraction disorder, which manifests as an unhealthy compulsion to engage in homosexual behavior.
Fortunately, these people can be helped to regain their health.
"such a level of hate"
Us hate? You're the one that is encouraging and enabling them to embrace a mental disorder that compels them to engage in self-destructive behavior, instead of facing them with the truth and encouraging them to seek treatment.
If we look at the outcome of our two approaches, yours is the one that conduces to their suffering and early deaths.
"I am glad that you "people" are the outcast of the conservative movement"
Whistle through that graveyard, Bucky. The aversion that healthy people feel for the mentally disturbed is instinctive; you'll never "educate" or legislate it away.
"Shame on you."
Oh? Which of us calls evil good, and good, evil? Which of us is promoting the spread of this mental disorder, and which of us advocates controlling its spread?
You need to get your head on straight.
I think you need to clear your head. You are confused.
I can't speak for the other freepers you posted to, but I do not believe that homosexuals should be discriminated against, and I have never said that I believe that.
I do, however, believe that citizens who do want to discriminate against homosexuals - - or plumbers, lawyers, Norwegians, blacks, whites, cripples, supermarket baggers, hockey referees, politicians, or steelworkers - - should be free to do so as long as public tax dollars are not involved.
See, the US Constitution allegedly safeguards freedom of association.
I will reply to your post ..... perhaps you should read the entire opinion for Romer vs Evan, including the magnificent dissent by Scalia, who shredded Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion. Obviously the 3 conservative & constructionist SCOTUS justices (Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist) did not feel this Colorado amendment violated the 14th amendment. Bottom line is that Roberts was dead wrong for participating at all in this case Pro Bono or not, since the effect was to strike down Colorado's right to legislate their own laws, and instead the U.S. Supreme ends up legislating this from the bench. The natural outcome of this despised ruling is another despised activist ruling in Lawrence vs Texas. Roberts helped participate and set the stage for this despicable SCOTUS judicial activist ruling when he should have had a principled objection to overturning a legitimate state's amendment!
Read the entire Romer vs Evan....
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/romer.html
It is really very sad to have people like you right here on this great forum, who stupidly believe that the Constitution allows discrimination based on race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation as long as tax money is not involved. This is shameful beyond belief.
Not much need to read farther, my friends.
Mister Farah wades deeper into the fever swamps every week.
At the perilous risk of making Mister Farah feel sicker, this "conservative" supports the appointment and confirmation of John Roberts and I trust President Bush to have done his DD on this critical issue.
You're pretty thick so I'll repost this one last time:
The United States 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 (in the Bill of Rights) 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 First Amendment by the way.)
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. I urge you to study up and then you can come back to Free Republic armed with the knowledge to debate intelligently. Happy surfing!
"You are the one with terrible mental disorder."
Ah, the Pee-Wee Herman defense: "I know you are, but what am I?"
How appropriate.
"sexual orientation"
There is no such thing as "sexual orientation" in the sense you are using it. Homosexual behavior is nothing more dignified than the symptom of a mental disorder.
Actually, trying to lump disordered behavior into the same set as race, sex, or religion is pretty strong prima facie evidence that one is a few rivets shy of a skyscraper.
"I do not believe that homosexuals should be discriminated against"
So, you have no problem if your son's high school hires a man who suffers from SSAD to teach gym and monitor your son in the shower?
How about if he starts bringing in fellow sufferers for some meat-gazing?
Great post. I hope that the conservative Senators take him to task during the hearings. And Roberts BETTER have good answers. No weasel words, just answers.
Would you send your son to the government schools?
You get what you deserve there.
#####It is really very sad to have people like you right here on this great forum, who stupidly believe that the Constitution allows discrimination based on race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation as long as tax money is not involved. This is shameful beyond belief#####
Damn! Maybe I should be banned from FreeRepublic!
And Sandra Day O'Conner as well!
And yes, Roberts worked for the wrong side on this one. Excellent - the left has managed to find a single case on which Roberts worked for the wrong side. Apparently he did so primarily because he routinely agreed to requests to assist in Pro Bono cases. I see no compelling evidence here that he agreed with the position he supported, or that he would agree with it now. I am certain that he will not tell us now what his position is on this case, either way.
And no, I am not outraged that a Supreme Court nominee has some case in his past where he worked for the wrong side. I remain confident that there is high probability that Roberts will be an excellent judge, and serve this Republic and its constitution well.
There are never any guarantees in such matters. But Bush has shown excellent skills at picking people, especially for key slots, and has stated repeatedly that he is choosing justices who will respect the constitution, not legislate from the bench.
Roberts has taken the 'good' side in all but apparently this one case, over his entire career (if there were more such cases he took the 'wrong' side on, I am confident that the Left will inform us, in good time, as they continue to try to divide and conquer America). Others, including George W. Bush, Reinquist and Mark Levin, whose judgement I trust in such matters more than my own, have heartily endorsed Roberts, for both competence and judicial philosophy.
We have done the reasonably best we can do. Let us confirm Roberts, and await the next vacancy on the Court, to continue to recover this fine Republic from the damage that has been done.
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.