That's one of the largest weaknesses of the Constitution. I'm sure that the framers never thought it would come to this, but, there it is. Getting a lifetime appointment is job security like no other.
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.
US Supreme Court Justices do not have any fear of the loss of their jobs. They are therefore unafraid of passing down idiotic rulings such as the latest private property grab system, a decision which the Founding Fathers would have abhorred. That's how out of touch these justices have become, even some of those justices who we believed to be conservative during the confirmation process.
How perfectly you've captured the attitude of teh Republibots.
Distressing perhaps, but not surprising.
Wouldn't be the first time that Farah had flown off the handle.
A story planted by the LASlimes is not a credible source to get worked up about.
That's one of the largest weaknesses of the Constitution. I'm sure that the framers never thought it would come to this, but, there it is. Getting a lifetime appointment is job security like no other.
Of course they are, but this was not a criminal case. This wa a constitutional question, and Roberts -- pro bono -- sided with the liberal judicial activists, taking a case that diminished states rights and increased judicial control over the legislative process. That is just exactly the kind of judicial activism we conservatives deplore.
But it must be OK because Dubya appoointed him, right? They attacked Howard Phillips when he testified against Souter. Now they attack Joe Farah and Ann Coulter for not supporting Roberts. I hope Roberts is the strict constructionist Scalia/Thomas type Justice we've been promised, but there were several candidates we know would be that kind of justice. That they weren't picked and this guy with little record was concerns me. Doesn't it concern you?
I don't think they ever really glued Farah back to it.
Farah is an idiot. Anything he's against I'm for.
Arghhh, that sounds bad.
The Founders anticipated that people would serve their constituents for a time and then return home. Sadly, politics became a career in itself and poisoned both the Congress and the Supreme Court.
This makes no more sense than the first time it was posted.
The "we ought to know" thing doesn't work for me. I don't think we need to know, as long as GWB does.
It comes down to whether you trust GWB enough to give him the benefit of the doubt.
If you don't trust his judgement, then you'll insist on knowing. If you trust him enough to give him the benefit of the doubt, then knowing is not necessary. I give GWB the benefit of the doubt because so far his appointments have with rare exceptions been an record of excellence, from chosing Chaney to be his VP, to Rumsfeld, to Rice, to Bolton, to Goss, to his federal circuit court nominees. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't nominate Roberts hoping Roberts would be the right guy, that he did it confident Roberts is the right guy.
I never had such faith in GB, which is why I wasn't really that surprised that someone he nominated turned out to be a Souter.
So you're for open borders, IRS abuse, and Big Government in general? Farah is against those things.
Farah's still an idiot.
Too bad.
Farah, please STFU already.
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.