Farah: No on Roberts

WorldNetDaily ^ | August 8, 2005 | Joe Farah

[TBP]

First Coulter, now Farah. The gay-rights case, aksing the Court, pro bono, to overturn a Colorado initiative, wasa case in support of the kind of liberal judicial activism we usually deplore. Added to the stuff Ann wrote aobut him, I think this is quite distressing. It's even more distressing that conservatives seem to think that this is a non-issue. Whether or not we agree with Farah's position, we should at least be talking and thinking about this.

Remember, some conservatives opposed Kennedy, O'Connor, and Souter, and were roundly attacked in the conservative movement for doing so.

[Clintonfatigued]

George W. Bush has been determined not to repeat his father's mistakes. Everyone agrees that Souter was a mistake, so chances are that the current President Bush was prepared for this.

[k2blader]

Now, now. He's been chosen by the Prez, has a wife and two cute kiddies, and is Roman Catholic. How could we ask for more??

[rdb3]

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.

And that heat-seeking missile found its target, i.e., splitting the Right. Very good job, Leftists. It worked.

[k2blader]

He'll be confirmed anyway.

[r9etb]

R9etb: No on Farah.

[WOSG]

"I think this is quite distressing."

Yes, it is distressing that Farah would fly off the handle, while 85,000 pages of documents indicate he is a very conservative person and judge.

" It's even more distressing that conservatives seem to think that this is a non-issue. Whether or not we agree with Farah's position, we should at least be talking and thinking about this."

Why? and play into the hands of the liberals, who *know* he is the real thing, a dangerously smart conservative, and are using this merely to cut the conservative support for him?

[rdb3]

He'll be confirmed anyway.

I'm pretty sure he will be confirmed. Still, that heat-seeking missile found its mark perfectly.

[Clump]

From all the writings I have seen, it appears that Roberts is truly a conservative. Also, the man is married to a pro-life activist. I can't even begin to imagine him upholding RvW when given the chance. Souter was far less known when he was nominated. I say we give the man a chance. I trust Bush on this one, especially considering how much influence Rove has on him. Rove is a staunch social conservative.

[Texas_Jarhead]

"Roberts was a partner in the firm. His job was not in jeopardy if he excused himself from the case on principled moral grounds."

This was the conclusion that I have reached as well.

[msnimje]

Why does the right spend so much time attaching its own?

Farah is not telling the truth. John Roberts DID NOT ACCEPT a PRO BONO CASE FOR GAY RIGHTS!!! Wrong, wrong, wrong.

[rog4vmi]

I think that Coulter and now Farah are completely full of b.s.

Roberts is very much a strict constructionist...and very close to being an originalist. Look at the french fry case, for example.

Roberts is no David Souter.

[msnimje]

OOPS attaching = attacking (Although attaching is pretty funny)

[ImaGraftedBranch]

Perhaps he knew that there wouldn't be a chance in heck to advance his career as a judge if the libs had found he'd recused himself on a homosexual case?

[IpaqMan]

I read on another FR thread that Roberts and his firm donated all of FIVE (5) hours toward this pro-bono case. It is believed that the WH leaked this information to cut the legs out from under the far left opposition.

[Hoboto]

Didn't Farah also predict a Kerry win in 2004?

[JeffersonRepublic.com]

Joe Farah's articles shouldn't be allowed without a barf alert.

[rdb3]

Why does the right spend so much time attaching [attacking]its own?

I think because it's far easier for them to attack their own allies than it is for them to attack the Left.

Your mileage may vary. Afterall, I'm high.

[TBP]

Roberts is very much a strict constructionist...and very close to being an originalist. Look at the french fry case, for example.

Roberts is no David Souter.

Well, that's not what his record in this and other cases says. I'm hoping you're right, but I should think we'd be doing more than hoping. We ought to know.

[abclily]

Gays are not entitled to the best defense they can acquire?
What is Farah's main point? Lawyers should not defend gays? Is this supposed to be part of the conservative platform? This inquiring mind needs to know just about immediately.