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.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
So what would you suggest?
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
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!
I think that all that we have worked for is at risk with this nomination. I think that Farah is correct. If he is correct, then what a bitter blow. However, I can't believe that Bush could or would be so "off the mark". Why or how could he be?
Do you agree with the SCOTUS decision in Romer v. Evans? With Lawrence v. Texas?
Yes, I'd like to know the specific number of hours too. But aparently it wasn't a lot. In fact it was less than other cases. I saw this quote:
Also, it was described in one article that Roberts time spent was actually playing the role of Justice Scalia in a mock SC hearing.
Imagine that, Hogan and Hartson's Pro Bono department (H & H being the firm that Roberts worked for), asks Roberts to help out by playing Scalia in a SC hearing. Sounds to me like Roberts is a Scalia-type and the Pro Bono department knows it.
If Roberts is not a conservative Justice, Pres. Bush is a failure.
He better be.
You know what I agree with? I agree that if it wasn't those two cases, you'd have found something ELSE to trash him with. Period.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
C R A P.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
You mean what do you know about him?
Or do you take George W. Bush to be a fool?
Not to mention Roberts has the complete support of Dobson and the Family Research Council.
Roberts is a solid Reaganite. Just because he did some pro-gay legal work ten years ago, doesn't mean he isn't a conservative.
Frankly, I am stunned at people who I thought had sense falling for this crap.
These ARE the Democratic talking points -- only it's people who say they are conservatives mouthing them.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
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.