Posted on 08/09/2005 5:38:56 AM PDT by Chuck54
Public Advocate President Eugene Delgaudio will be announce on Wednesday morning, Aug. 10, at 11 a.m. in front of the Supreme Court that Public Advocate of the United States, a Virginia based national pro-family group is withdrawing its support for Judge John Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court.
The move comes as a result of Roberts' support for the radical homosexual lobby in the 1996 Supreme Court case Romer v. Evans,
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
"Is there any evidence that Roberts actually SUPPORTS the CAUSE of these activists? If so, I haven't heard of it."
In addition, it seems to be forgotten that he didn't decide the case. Other judges made the decision, Roberts presented a case. The deciding judges should be the ones catching the flak, but no one even discusses their roles.
How did this overrule the right of the voters?
Roberts sat on a mock Supreme Court panel acting as Justice Scalia. It is a common practice for Court of Appeals Judges and District Court Judges in D.C. to volunteer to do this regardless of ideology.
For example, I understand that Jay Sekulo sat as a judge on a mock panel for the California medical marijuana case and he clearly is not pro-marijuana legalization.
Lots of folks are unaware of this practice, but it is common and tells you nothing about ideology of the candidate.
This is a good opportunity for some fringe groups to get a lot of publicity.
"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."
What Roberts and the lead attorneys and plaintiffs did in this case was NOT follow the law. They overthrew existing law and knock down what the people of Colorado put into their Constitution, namely, a provision which outlawed homosexuals from getting special rights. This case was as activist as they come.
"Is there any evidence that Roberts actually SUPPORTS the CAUSE of these activists? If so, I haven't heard of it."
The evidence would be that he worked for free, gave his substantial expertise for free. During the hours he worked for free, he could have been working for a paying client, working for free for a good cause, or at home with his family. Each of those would have been preferable to volunteering for the homosexual cause.
It is common practice for judges and academics. And rightly so.
But when it is in preparation for your firm's representation of a client (ie, I'm pretty sure the press wasn't invited...this was a private drill, designed with one intent: to make the plaintiffs' case deadly), it is not just a mock trial. It is advocacy on behalf of the client. It is no different than reviewing the appellate brief and offering points such as "well, here is what Scalia would say about that."
I think Roberts will be ok. But these concerns are legit. This case was a landmark SCOTUS for judicial activism. And most of the insiders say that Roberts' advice was critical.
So...the facts are that he volunteered his services to get one of the worst cases of the last quarter century through the system. Conservatives are right to be peeved about that. Hell, he could at least have demanded to be paid. That would be forgivable.
Thank you for that information.
I have a problem with hate crimes and specific groups ruled to be "protected" because we have laws which prohibit violence or discrimination against ANY group.
The first thing to do is read more than the headlines.
It appears that all some people need is to see the words 'homosexual' and 'Roberts' in the same sentence, and they go off.
Gag me with a spoon.
So many self-defeating cowards around here.
Ah well, this was one subject he wasn't even evasive on. But then he also said he wouldn't sign CFR. Roberts donated help for the Romer case is certainly incongruent with his judicial restraint statements. I'm guessing this judge was a Cheney pick.
The next Supreme Court Judges will be a significant factor in future Court decisions.
Bush may have this and one other appointment- Rehnquist's replacement- hopefully.
Currently there are five loose constructionists on the SCOTUS: Breyer, Ginsberg, Stevens, Souter, and Kennedy.
There are two strict constructionists: Thomas and Scalia.
Bush "owes" his supporters, many of whom voted for him and supported him just because of the chance he would be appointing as new SCOTUS judges, strict constuctionists.
Roberts is still really an unknown quantity.
His actions involving the homosexual case don't appear THAT significant, but after Souter, O'Connor and Kennedy, Conservatives are justifiably gun-shy.
Bush COULD have selected any one of several candidates with solid conservative, strict constructionist records, but he choose this "dark horse" as it were.
At this point, I don't what to believe about Roberts - I keep swinging one way or the other on his appointment, consequently I have not sent any messages one way or the other to my representatives or the White House - as if that mattered
This group feels they have legitimate concerns regarding an action taken by Roberts which he could have avoided and which resulted in a bad decision by the SCOTUS. I share those concerns.
Roberts has also made some very unsettling statements regarding the importance of sticking with prior long-standing SCOTUS legal precedent. Since we both know decisions on equal but separate facilities, and Roe versus Wade, not to mention Emery, are really unconstitutional cases of legislating from the bench, I wonder what he means.
Perhaps he is just being cagy and trying to keep the Dems off balance. I hope so.
Perhaps he is a decent guy, but someone whose opinions can be swayed by the likes of the Evil 5 still on the bench.
He certainly doesn't appear to have the kind of dogmatic, stolid, unbending conservative principles of a Clarence Thomas or Scalia.
I guess only time will tell here, and we can only hope for the best - whatever that is.
I do know that George Bush II started his Presidency with great promise in his first term. He did a good job with the war on terrorism and has succceeded in preventing any new attacks on American soil. But we know Al Quaida takes a long time to plan major events.
His second term has so far been a disappointment.
His statements about illegal invaders and his "guest worker" program, border on the moronic.
His actions in the Middle East are growing wearisome. Iraq will NEVER be secure with a Baathist regime still in power in Syria, and we will soon be under another nuclear threat - not from the relatively rational Soviets, thanks to Ronald Reagan - God Bless his soul - but from the lunatics in Iran.
Some of Bush's appointees have been most unwise - Tom Kean as Chairman of the 9-11 Commission, retention of Norman Minetta, George Tennet, and Luis Freeh, appointments of Chrissie Whitman, Tom Ridge, and Chrissie Whitman.
In the long run, history will judge Bush on the basis of his last term and Conservatives will judge Bush on the basis of his impact on the Federal Court System, an arm of the government which has been acting in an increasingly rogue manner without any challenges from anyone.
The future of our Republic and the Constitution could very well rest on the choices of George W. Bush for the Supreme Court. God give him wisdom - he will need it.
Yeah, and Bush was just using great strategy when he signed the CFR bill. HELLO? Earth to conservatives. Roberts actually did donated his time to this case. The LA Times is a biased publication, but that doesn't make the story untrue.
Delgado needs to have his head examined.
As a junior partner in his law firm, he was asked to help out with the case. You think he should have shot his career in the foot just because you don't approve of the position some other lawyer was taking?
I understand that he was not obligated to do the work. He was obligated to do SOME pro-bono work. He did a great deal of it, and this was one he willingly took on. If he were paid then I would have a lesser problem with it. Everyone is entitled to representation (though I wouldn't personally choose an attorney who didn't share my convictions). But why was this case a pro-bono case? Why didn't they at least have to raise the money? Why did they get free high-end attorney services? I bet the state of Colorado (read: Colorado taxpayers) had to pay for their legal services. This whole thing smells!!!!
Do we even know what advice Roberts gave? I think that would be rather significant to know before drawing any conclusions.
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.