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.
Give me a break. Although some jurisdictions had anti-sodomy laws on the books, few states had arrested and convicted anyone under these laws in decades. Sodomy has been decriminalized for years. Even in Texas it was a rarity. You are blowing the decision way out of proportion.
Are you under the impression that conservatives are in favor of sanctioned discrimination against a certain class of people?
Let's face it Howlin, many conservatives are. Believe it or not, this conservative pretty much agrees with you, but a landlord or employer should also be able to choose who they hire or have live in their property at the same time.
That seems to be their goal..........LOL.
Did you happen to read Ann Coulter's latest column wherein she describes the pre-Supreme Court rulings, writings, and conservative bona fides of David Souter? Scary, scary stuff. I have to admit, I'm a little nervous about Roberts, too (although my nervousness is somewhat tempered by my tremendous faith and confidence in Dubya).
"If Roberts is not a conservative Justice, Pres. Bush is a failure."
Just like Reagan was a "failure" right?
Sorry, I don't believe it's 'many.'
I believe that that number is quite few, regardless of their font gnashing.
What conservatives I know believe is that there should be no SPECIAL laws for or against gays. Just like I believe we don't need a Hate Crimes Law.
You should be able to deny housing or work to any person just because you don't like the way they look, FGS, but not SPECIFICALLY because they are gay.
There are some people on these threads tonight that I'd discriminate against just because they're so damn sanctimonious........LOL.
"Farah = part-time wing-nut"
I think he's working hard towards full time employment...
I pay very little attention to Farah anymore. Way too many times screaming wolf... A waste of time.
A bit over the top don't you think?
And that's putting it kindly...
These ARE the Democratic talking points -- only it's people who say they are conservatives mouthing them.
Amen
Roberts has been behind the scenes in 2000 Florida recount . And He just looks better and better...
Why not?
There are some people on these threads tonight that I'd discriminate against just because they're so damn sanctimonious........LOL.
You noticed that too huh? LOL
I hope it was that trivial, but what motive on earth would she, of all people, have to talk it up BEFORE he got nominated for SCOTUS. The picture she paints is that Roberts advised her how to snag the swing justices. Any tangible records speaking to the issue would be helpful.
Read the 14th Amendment lately?
Hey Howlin,
I see you're educating the masses...as usual.
My only conclusion is that these people are Bush haters and are DYING to find something to once again trash him with.
The Democrats must be amused by their great luck at having these "real conservatives" carrying their water.
Scalia was correct in his dissent. The majority ruling in Romer was based on political correctness, not on the Constitution.
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.