A few of my favs - back in the day...
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.
Thank's for your feedback.
I am sure that discussions involving Bush, Cheney, and Roberts revealed many things that are not being disclosed to the public.
As an intangible, I saw a man with conviction and integrity when the President introduced him to the nation. As a Christian I am constantly amazed how true it is that the eyes are indeed the window to the soul. I liked what I saw, and I have no reason to oppose him at this point.
That said, I want Luttig to be our next Chief Justice.
Also, the comments made by Roberts on CNN a few years back tells me something about his views. He said that the SC was not very conservative, and he used the upholding of Miranda as an example.
Most conservative legal scholars I know don't really have a problem with Miranda. That includes Scalia, but not Thomas. So I think he could actually be more of a Thomas type justice, and we will all be very pleased in hind sight with the selection.
Bush has been underestimated since day one, and he has come through when it counts.
I bet you'll be saying the same thing if he gets on the court and votes most of the time with Souter. Fact is, he's a pig in a poke - and Republican "pig in the poke" nominees have turned out, without exception to be liberals: Souter, Kennedy, O'Connor, Stevens. If Roberts doesn't turn out to be a liberal on the court, he'll be a first "pig in a poke" GOP nominee who doesn't turn out to be a liberal. His helping a radical gay-rights lawsuit hardly inspires optimism that he won't be another Souter.
Is Souter one of our own? He was nominated by a GOP president - Bush Sr. Does that mean we have to treat him with respect, and pretend he's a conservative, because "the right shouldn't attack its own"?
In the LATimes, they quoted the lawyer as saying Roberts played the role of Scalia in a moot court - and that his help was invaluable. He helped her frame her arguments so as to neutralize Scalia. Doesn't make Roberts a hero in my book.
That's the problem. Instead of nominating someone with known conservative credentials, Bush gave us a pig in a poke. In that sense, Roberts is like a string of GOP nominees whose views weren't known when they were nominated: Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter. Would you have blasted Farah at the time, for opposing those Republican appointments, too?
A few of my favs - back in the day...
Devil is in the details; proof is in the pudding. I'd rather rely on a careful reading of his decisions than your "Pig in Poke" assertion.
Have you even bothered to read the french fry decision I referenced earlier?
So who ar ethese lovelies?
Linda Blair (Exorcist), Valerie Bertinelli (One Day at a Time) & Phoebe Cates (Fast Times at Ridgemont High).
Four sentences in and already a blatant intentional deception. Not much credibility here I'm afraid.
What a brilliant post that was.
And you have the nerve to call some of us on this board lemmings because we support the President and don't agree with you?
How comical.
Valerie I recognized. The other two I didn't. Good looking all of them.
Yes!
Yes!
Four sentences in and already a blatant intentional deception. Not much credibility here I'm afraid.
No, not a deception at all. he was a partner in his firm; he did not have to participate in teh case. Teh work was pro bono, which means "for the public good," i.e., free.
No deception tehre, as you know.
Roberts spent about 6 hours playing the role of Scalia for his liberal colleagues. Big #*$#ing deal.
Souter was known to be pro-abortion by several groups. In the age of the internet, Souter would have been outed very quickly.
Farah also wrote an article in 2000 that incorrectly said that Gore could as head of the Senate ultimately overturn the election by himself.
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.