WP: Conservatives Remain Steady in Support of Roberts

The most ardent supporters of John G. Roberts Jr. have had a few moments of heartburn in the month since President Bush nominated him to the Supreme Court, but conservative advocacy groups say that nothing they have learned during the public dissection of his record has dampened their fundamental support.

In a sign that the backing remains solid on the right despite the revelation last week that he helped gay rights activists win a landmark Supreme Court case in 1996, organizers said Roberts's cause will be repeatedly and energetically embraced by speakers at "Justice Sunday II," a Family Research Council production that will be broadcast live to churches around the country next weekend from Two Rivers Baptist Church in Nashville. Speakers include House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and Charles Colson, the former Nixon administration official who heads Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Christian activists had been forced into a snap reassessment when the Los Angeles Times revealed on Thursday that Roberts had taken a limited pro bono role as a coach for gay rights groups involved in the 1996 case, Romer v. Evans , when he was working at the Washington law firm of Hogan & Hartson.

The case was one of three that James Dobson, founder and chairman of the conservative Focus on the Family, singled out when he said on his nationally syndicated radio show two years ago that Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, is "the most dangerous man in America."

In their public statements, religious conservatives held their tongues. Tom Minnery, vice president of public policy at Focus on the Family, said the group views the revelation about Roberts's work for gay rights groups as "disappointing news."

He did more than just a few hours on the mock court. He helped prepare the briefs used in the arguments. More importantly, it would show that he either supports the gay rights agenda, or is neutral at best. He clearly is not repulsed by homosexual behavior or their perceived rights.
Homer vs Evan SCOTUS ruling is the primary ruling used by liberal/activist judges to overturn states' marriage amendment like Nebraska for example.... and Roberts had a major part in helping the gays win Homer vs Evan.

Secondly he did in fact vow to honor past precendent SCOTUS rulings and has given no indication that he would vote to overturn any past liberal/activist rulings.

Thirdly he is disavowing as fast as he can his affiliations or past assosociations with the Federalist Society, in order to appease left wing Dimwits.

My opinion is that Roberts will be a moderate-liberal leaning judge (relatively conservative on business related issues, liberal/activist on abortion-gay agenda-cultrual-10 Commandments-proGovernment intrusion issues) following closely in the footsteps of O'Conner-Souter.

"
Reading the WaPo headline I can see they are disapointed the story didn't fracture Roberts support or even collapse it. There is a reason for that. Everything known about Roberts thus far has been extremely positive. We Trust the President. We trust his success at picking placements for the bench. And, of course, the hearings are always time for any questions that may exist. The LA Times WILL NOT be the cause of fracture. Roberts will be assessed separately from the MSM headlines. Judgement will be made separately from their actions."

BS

Bush had a chance to appoint a conservative originalist who has proven his mettle by sitting on a court for longer than a year or 2. Instead he picked the blank slate, Roberts.

We've seen Bush expand the role and scope of the federal government even more than Clinton did - at least Clinton faced a hostile Congress in the face of his proposals - Medicare drug "reform" would have been called what it is by the GOP under Clinton - socialized medicine.

We've seen Bush promise to sign AWB, sign CFR, sign CAFTA, and push LOST and the FTAA, want to "reform" the UN instead of abandoning it as the worthless crap is, come out in support of Koffi Annan, push Israel to withdraw from it's own country, refuse to name Islamic terrorism for what it is so much that his very words "religion of peace" are used in derisive mockery every time another terrorist attack occurs, support open borders and de facto amnesty, social security totalization with mexico, I could really go on and on. So could any FReeper who pays attention could too.

Bush didn't turn out as conservative as many of us hope, we laugh when the MSM calls him a "right wing ideologue."

His judicial pick wasn't one of the many fine Conservative judges who have proved their mettle and resolve over years on the bench. Instead, he picked a... trial lawyer. Who claims the paper record of his past work doesn't reflect his views. Blank slate.

Dissapointed again!

" 1. A few hours on a mock court does not a trend make."

HE PREPARED THEIR BRIEFS. In other words, he wrote the talking points that won the case. Why?

"2. Judge Roberts did not vow to uphold prior SCOTUS rulings. It flat did not happen."

Sure sounds like it to me!
Here is one quote -"Roe v. Wade, is the settled law of the land. There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

and the following
from http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050803/ap_on_go_su_co/roberts -

Some Senate Democrats have also cautioned against "judicial activism," although their definition refers to judges who would ignore legal precedent and overturn more liberal Supreme Court decisions in the 1960s and 1970s, such as the Roe decision.

****In his response, Roberts reaffirmed that precedent plays an "important role in promoting the stability of the legal system." He also said judges "do not have a commission to solve society's problems."****

GREAT post! Bush is no principled conservative to be sure. Besides all the other betrayals you mentioned he goes ahead and picks a blank slate like Roberts, with a number of disturbing trends and views coming to light. If confirmed, I predict Roberts will be an O'Conner-Souter type of justice. Bush could have (and should have) done much better. But this is pretty much vintage Bush in action.

He needs to go much further than simply speaking out against judicial activism. Heck, he even promised Schumer that he was against activist judges....of course the context of that statement was following his meeting with Schumer, who like other left-wing Dems, have distorted and changed the term "activist judges" so that left wing Dimwits use it to categorize constructionist & originalist judges like Scalia - Thomas.

Roberts is very careful to reaffirm his support of past precedent rulings... meaning of course Roe vs Wade, Lawrence vs Texas, Homer vs Evan, and any other liberal/activist rulings. Of course conservative rulings (if there are any left) are always fair game to change those precedents.

Nothing Clinton did prevented Bush from nominating a known originalist to the Supreme Court. And Bush has made his share of messes, as well.

Nobody's forcing Bush to sign one spending bill after another after another after another. Has Bush even vetoed anything at this point in his presidency? Spending taxpayer money is a lot easier than spending his own, which might explain Bush's behavior. Perhaps we need a real originalist in the White House as much as we need one on the Supreme Court.

In other words, he wrote the talking points that won the case. Why?

Who knows? Probably as a cvourtesy to his partners in the firm that were arguing the case.

"Roe v. Wade, is the settled law of the land. There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

Nicely out of context. This was in relation to being an appelate court judge, where he would have no authority to overturn a decision by the USSC. Any candidate for a lower court who said anything fundamentally different wouldn't be fit to serve.

Roberts reaffirmed that precedent plays an "important role in promoting the stability of the legal system."

"Important role" does not mean that it is out of the question to go against precendent. The jury is still out on this guy, but it seems like you're so eager to believe he's a bad choice that you're willing to look at things only in the worst possible light.

Until I see something solid against Roberts, I'm going to trust the President, given his judicial nominations track record to date. I'm perfectly willing to accept that the guy is a flawed choice, but I want to see proof, not conjecture, before I start trashing him.

" Nicely out of context. This was in relation to being an appelate court judge, where he would have no authority to overturn a decision by the USSC. Any candidate for a lower court who said anything fundamentally different wouldn't be fit to serve."

You're making an assumption and parsing words.

""Important role" does not mean that it is out of the question to go against precendent. The jury is still out on this guy, but it seems like you're so eager to believe he's a bad choice that you're willing to look at things only in the worst possible light."

I'm looking at him in the light of not having a lot of judicial examples of his to go on. You're looking at him in the best possible light and giving him every benefit of the doubt, without a sufficient sample size of evidence to back up your viewpoint.

" Until I see something solid against Roberts, I'm going to trust the President, given his judicial nominations track record to date. I'm perfectly willing to accept that the guy is a flawed choice, but I want to see proof, not conjecture, before I start trashing him."

If he's a flawed choice (as I said, I haven't made up my mind yet) it's because he hasn't been a judge for long enough to know what he'd actually do on SCOTUS.

You're making an assumption and parsing words.

Funny, that's what I'm implicitly accusing you of doing. The quote you posted was specifically in the context of being an appelate court judge; to assume that this sentiment would continue to apply on the USSC would be, in my opinion, an incorrect and improper parsing of words.

I'm looking at him in the light of not having a lot of judicial examples of his to go on.

I agree that this is a concern. I was only replying to the specific comments.

" Funny, that's what I'm implicitly accusing you of doing. The quote you posted was specifically in the context of being an appelate court judge; to assume that this sentiment would continue to apply on the USSC would be, in my opinion, an incorrect and improper parsing of words."

That's part of the problem.

There aren't enough rulings of his for us to know HOW to interpret his words!

So why did Bush pick him over other people with a better record?

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.