(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
So what would you suggest?
Farah is a fair weather friend to Conservatives at best.
Farah makes me pretty sick.
That is utter rubbish.
The FIRST thing that was on the mind of this White House was to make sure that this guy WAS NOT a stealth candidate.
But Chuck Schumer thanks you for your help!
Excepting those who've bought into the LA Times line of bullcrap...
I do not hold that we should put on the Court only judges who oppose gays in all cases. I hold that we should put on the Court only judges who uphold the constitution in all cases.
Now and then, anyone, even gays, may find that the plain text of the constitution is on their side in a case. So be it.
The gay baiting of this post and its transparent use as a tool to divide us is disgusting.
Here is the summary text of the actual ROMER v. EVANS, ___ U.S. ___ (1996) Supreme Court decision:
A clear and substantial case is made here that the Colorado Ammendment 2 violated the plain text of the 14th Ammendment.
Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause. Pp. 4-14.
(a) The State's principal argument that Amendment 2 puts gays and lesbians in the same position as all other persons by denying them special rights is rejected as implausible. The extent of the change in legal status effected by this law is evident from the authoritative construction of Colorado's Supreme Court - which establishes that the amendment's immediate effect is to repeal all existing statutes, regulations, ordinances, and policies of state and local entities barring discrimination based on sexual orientation, and that its ultimate effect is to prohibit any governmental entity from adopting similar, or more protective, measures in the future absent state constitutional amendment - and from a review of the terms, structure, Page II and operation of the ordinances that would be repealsed and prohibited by Amendment 2. Even if, as the State contends, homosexuals can find protection in laws and policies of general application, Amendment 2 goes well beyond merely depriving them of special rights. It imposes a broad disability upon those persons alone, forbidding them, but no others, to seek specific legal protection from injuries caused by discrimination in a wide range of public and private transactions. Pp. 4-9.
(b) In order to reconcile the Fourteenth Amendment's promise that no person shall be denied equal protection with the practical reality that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, the Court has stated that it will uphold a law that neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class so long as the legislative classification bears a rational relation to some independent and legitimate legislative end. See, e.g., Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 319 -320. Amendment 2 fails, indeed defies, even this conventional inquiry. First, the amendment is at once too narrow and too broad, identifying persons by a single trait and then denying them the possibility of protection across the board. This disqualification of a class of persons from the right to obtain specific protection from the law is unprecedented and is itself a denial of equal protection in the most literal sense. Second, the sheer breadth of Amendment 2, which makes a general announcement that gays and lesbians shall not have any particular protections from the law, is so far removed from the reasons offered for it, i.e., respect for other citizens' freedom of association, particularly landlords or employers who have personal or religious objections to homosexuality, and the State's interest in conserving resources to fight discrimination against other groups, that the amendment cannot be explained by reference to those reasons; the Amendment raises the inevitable inference that it is born of animosity toward the class that it affects. Amendment 2 cannot be said to be directed to an identifiable legitimate purpose or discrete objective. It is a status-based classification of persons undertaken for its own sake, something the Equal Protection Clause does not permit. Pp. 9-14.
It's simple,either support the president and his nominee,or don't.
Farah doesn't,I do.Screw Farah.
The only interesting thing I find about this "article" is the fact the WND appears to have run out of crackpot conspiracy theories and National Enquirer level investigative reporting (at least for the time being). However, I'm sure I won't need to wait long before I once again will have the "pleasure" of reading "breaking news" from WND about Bigfoot, Martian invaders or something similar.
Farah = part-time wing-nut
What ever one thinks of Farah, the above is irrefutable. Roberts was a poor choice, and should withdraw his name from consideration.
I usually don't pay too much attention to Joseph Farah, and this kind of utter rubbish explains why. Anyone who knows anything about the L.A. Times knows that it operates in lock-step with left-wing special interest groups, and those groups are all opposing Roberts to the maximum extent they can.
Why would the Times want to "bring Democrats on board"? Even if they secretly wanted Roberts to be confirmed, there's no need to persuade Democrats to vote for him. All it will take is a handful of Democrats in the "Gang of 14" to agree not to filibuster him, which is what will likely happen regardless of any story the L.A. Times runs. Democrats know they can't filibuster in this case because that would make it easy for Republicans to claim the Dems had broken the agreement, and hence to exercise the nuclear option.
Even if Roberts was a "stealth candidate" in the mold of Souter and Kennedy, the optimum political strategy for Democrats would still be to castigate him and allow him to be approved by the narrowest margin possible. That would presumably pressure Bush not to appoint a hard-core conservative next time, on the theory that even Roberts barely squeaked through.
So irrespective of whether Roberts is in fact a solid conservative or a stealth liberal, the intent of the L.A. Times story was to drive a wedge into conservative Republican support for Roberts. It's purpose was not to reassure the Left. Farah is trying to bend the facts to fit his emotional preconceptions.
The Times is NOT trying to "reassure the Left." They are trying to get the knickers of the Right in a twist. And Farrah, being either a fool or overly excited, buys into the bit.
And yes, I can easily supply three written decisions by Roberts that are examples of "strict construction." The French fry in the metro case -- he said the police action was foolish, but within the Constitution. The arroyo toad case -- he wrote that the toad did not cross state lines, and therefore was unconstitutional. The no-license, no-registration auto case -- he wrote that it was good police work to search the car trunk.
Those who doubt that Roberts follows a strict view of the Constitution should read MORE of his words, and less of the second-, third-, and fourth-hand words about him, like this ill-informed piece by Farrah.
Congressman Billybob
If Mr. Roberts gets on the Supreme Court, I don't know whether he will be a good justice or a bad one. But I do know that the FReeper "conservatives" have a love fixation on president Bush. One dare not say anything negative about him or they go into a frenzy like a lover defending his love object.
FWIU Roberts spent 10 pro-bono hours helping a colleague who was actually working on the case. It was consistent with his pro bono policy at the time and not indicitive of any Left leanings.
The more I hear about Roberts the more I like. Hs conscience as a lawyer is clear: to represent his client zealously, no matter what. As I have heard it said, he is a "lawyer's lawyer."
This LA Times peice is just there to accomplish what this article is doing: upset the Right since we can't nail him on anyhting.
I have also heard that the NYT is going after his family, trying to find some dirt on his 2 adoptions.
The agenda is clear: If Bush picked him and he isn't on the Lefty List, go after him with everything the MSM has in its arsenol.
Sad Farah fell for it.
We'll divide ourselves without any help, thank you very much.
WND in a nutshell.