Posted on 08/08/2005 3:29:26 PM PDT by TBP
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.
Except that, in essence, that was the question he was being asked. When judicial nominees say that Roe is "settled law," they are usually doing so in response to a question about it being ovrturned and they usually mean that they will not overturn it or alter ti significantly.
But Plessy was "settled law" for longer than Roe has been.
Roe is bad law. I don't think anyone, including those on the left, would deny it.
Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg has said so, in a 1985 essay, but she consistently upholds it -- after all, it's "settled law."
Because it doen't blindly follow wherever Goerge W. Bush decides to wander? It happens that Joe's comments are right on conservative principle here.
No, he thinks he should be denied confirmation. So do some other conservatives.
So if one is against anything Farah is for, then is one for all these things? It would seem so.
It's not even about the fact that his help appears to have put a gay-rights case over the top; it's about the simple fact that his help helped win a case for the side whose victory required the kind of judicial activism that we nomrally oppose in the judiciary.
His words, not mine.
Exactly, oldbrowser. We have to look at the issues, not at where the report comes from.
That poster was on my dorm room wall. Beside Cheryl Tiegs.
Lighten up please, Hank. It's a post, not a doctoral dissertation.
His words, not mine.
Exactly. He ought to be denied the vote to confirm, not the vote itself.
Yes, but he isn't a Republibot and he doesn't blindly follow wherever Bush decides to meander, so he's boviously not a conservative.
It does, and it has been known to get things absolutely wrong, as it demonstrated when it tried to sit on the Lewinsky story (thanks to Drudge for getting it out), but this story is not disputed because it can be backed up by the record and it's clear Roberts did it eagerly. That indicates at leasta higher tolerance of judicial activism than we ought to be supporting.
And it's not as if there weren't better choices, even putting aside suggestions like Keyes and Phillips's suggestion of Judge Roy Moore. Harvie Wilkinson,Michael Luttig, Edith Jones, or Samuel Alito would have been better picks. Heck, Estrada would have been a better pick and better politics too.
So criticizing a lawyer for eagerly workng (pro bono) on a case that required major judicial activism and stretching the Constitution beyond recognition to win it is somehow liberal? Are you serious?
This is why Farah says he's disgusted by some conservatives; they just follow whatever Republican they can find, even if the Republicans happen to be leading us right off the cliff. Principles? What are those? We have to support the leadership of the party no matter what.
Like robots and lemmings.
You know Nothing about Roberts and nor does Farah. So don't even begin to give us the "conservative principle" routine.
Exactly. Too many self-proclaimed "conservatives" will follow the same policies that they decry from liberals if suddenly a Republican proposes them. That's why we get all the rhetoric and they get all the action.
Then these "conservatives" will slam others as fake conservatives for standing up for our principles against whatever bad idea the GOP has this week. It happens on nominations, on immigration, on the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold, on the largest entitlement program in 40 years, on any number of issues. It's a crazy workd where the only real conservatives are the ones who walk away from conservative principles. Looking-glass conservatism.
This blind worship of all things Republican has got to stop. That is why "Republicans" like The Specter are in position to obstruct along with the other Dimmycraps, because conservatives concvince themselves that losing with Republicans in power is somehow better than losing with Democrats in power. That's why I call this kind of conservative Republibots. They follow the Republicans like robots, no matter what.
THis is as far as I got. no thanks.
Roberts gave six hours of consultation to a fellow attorney from his law firm that was working on a pro bono case.
Nobody has provided the specific details regarding the nature of the consultation.
To describe his participation as "eagerly" is trollish.
If you are trying to drive a wedge between the freepers you need better proof.
When Roberts described Roe as settled law, he did so in the context of his nomination to the DC Circuit.
So, the answer is that "no" he was not stating in the context as you described. As an appellate judge, he was and is bound by Supreme Court precedent. In this matter, he was merely stating that Roe is settled law -- because the Supreme Court had decided the issue in Roe and its progeny.
As a Supreme Court nominee, he will likely answer such a hypothetical question without an answer...other than to state that Roe is settled law...which it is. This is an important distinction from the propostion that you have stated.
With respect to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, she is perhaps the most ardent in her respect for stare decisis. By her logic, Plessy would not have been overturned because the issue was "settled." On the other hand, Ginsburg has never been a strict constructionist...or originalist...which I maintain Judge Roberts is based upon the "french fry" case.
Please read it....
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200410/03-7149a.pdf
Baloney. It has everything to do with "standing by the only President we have. After all, do you ant Democrats making these decisions?" No matter what information comes out, many conservatives will support the nominee simply becaue the President appointed him. Joe Farah is saying, wait a minute, there are things here that don't match up with the description of Roberts as a "strict constructionist" or an "originalist." We should look before we leap.
But too many people here define "whack job" as "someone who criticizes what the Republicans do."
You know Nothing about Roberts and nor does Farah.
Well, not a lot, and that is the problem. He might be a Scalia or a Thomas. he might be O'Connor, Kennedy, or souter. As Ann Coulter noted, stealth nominees have never worked out well for conservaitves. "Never. Not ever." In fact, the only Justice I can remember moving right of where he was expected to be was Byron White, appointed by a Democrat.
Is this a risk we're willing to take at this critical time, or should we hold onto higher standards? Farah, Coulter, and other conservatives argue the latter.
And what we do know about Roberts's record is mixed at best. This case that Farah cited shows a much higher tolerance for judicial activism than a judge or a judicial nominee, especially a Supreme Court Justice, ought to have. That concerns me; evidently, it doesn't concern you.
This is precisely a matter of making sure conservative principles are upheld. We don't know if Roberts will uphold the principle of judicial restraint. We should know, not just hope, and other candidates would hve gien us the opportunity to be significantly more certain.
I'm more partial to Jaclyn Smith myself. I had a poster of her in a bathrobe that I wish I could find on teh Net somewhere. Yum!
For some reason, I always found Marie Osmond very attractive too.
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.