Posted on 08/09/2005 5:38:56 AM PDT by Chuck54
I've got a feeling before this confirmation is over we're going to find out if the "middle" really has 51 votes or not.
And we are supposed to be concerned about this group's opinion because........
I agree!! The legacy media is trying really hard to convince conservatives to form a circular firing squad again. Dingbats like this fall for it every time.
Why is it wrong to question and be informed about the judge's decisions....
...that's what we're suppose to do...
This is about Romer, Governor of Colorado, at the time ....early 90's.
He believed homosexuals deserved special rights...
I abhor the New York Times or anyone else digging into Roberts home background or messing with his kids....
..but we need to know....conservatives...need to know his true direction.
I trust President Bush....but presidents have been fooled before.
I know Dr.Dobson will investigate this thoroughly.
Don't know the group. However, I'm one of the great Roberts skeptics.
This group is jumping the gun. I'm a Roberts supporter but I do want to hear more about his role in the Romer case. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but the court's ruling in Romer was appalling.
I'd never even heard of this group until a few days ago. I don't think their opposition means much.
Question:
Roberts supposed "support" for this radical homosexual group - was he in support of the group, or the law involved in the case?
The way I look at it - if Roberts was upholding the letter of the law, he should be commended, even if this was a group a conservative would otherwise not want to be associated with. It would just prove that he is blind to agendas, and is more concerned with the proper execution of law - not exercizing an agenda through the bench.
Does every criminal attorney actually support their client's activities, or are they doing their job by giving them the best defense they can - as required by law?
Is there any evidence that Roberts actually SUPPORTS the CAUSE of these activists? If so, I haven't heard of it.
Have to face certain facts...Roberts is just about as conservative a choice as will ever be offered..
Yes, I know the abortion folk are working overtime discrediting him, and conservatives who are for 'life' are suppose to be encouraged by this.
I'm one of those 'life' conservatives, but I still want to ask questions, and get answers about this man.
I truly want Roe v Wade overturned....
..I also want the sanctity of marriage between a man & woman protected.
They're probably a bunch of libs that created a "conservative" name, with the intent of making headlines and undermining the Roberts nomination.
Even if they are "legitimate", who cares?
Not having met Eugene DelGaudio, I can only guess his motives, but considering most of the replies here, it would appear that no one has heard of Public Advocate of the United States. My guess is that he's a publicity hound.
President Picks Conservative for Supreme Court July 20, 2005
Washington, DC – Public Advocate President Eugene Delgaudio praised President Bush today for his selection of Judge John Roberts to replace Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court. Roberts, a conservative who served in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administration, was nominated by the current President Bush to serve on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2001.
“We are optimistic that an apparent conservative will be replacing left-wing liberal Justice O’Connor,” said Delgaudio. “The President has kept his word to the conservative electorate that put him into office to appoint an originalist who will not legislate from the bench but rather interpret and enforce the law.
Considering the current makeup of the Senate I don't believe that any candidate to the right of Roberts could get 51 votes for confirmation. The process is being driven by special interest groups both left and right that demand ideological purity and will settle for nothing less. If Bush nominates a person who is "ideologically pure" then that person is an ideologue and would never be confirmed.
That is a very scary article. It needs a very effective counterpoint.
Ummmm, the Constitution strictly prohibits religious test for government offices. So you think we should exclude religious people for all cases that involve morals. What a croock.
A beautiful Rovean scheme to make the liberals and their useful idiots in the press think that Roberts is a moderate.
I see you were just quoting the Globe.
The first flag against Souter that conservatives missed was that he was not married.
From what I have seen of Roberts, I am not sure there are too many judges to the right of him. What makes Roberts a great pick is that he is conservative but he packages it with a great intellect and charisma.
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.