Farah: No on Roberts

WorldNetDaily ^ | August 8, 2005 | Joe Farah

[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.

[Hank Rearden]

US Supreme Court Justices affect so much of our daily lives, culture, and law, that they should be directly elected by the people of the United States, and they should stand for re-election on a regular basis.

Very, very dumb idea. Our government was constituted to secure the individual liberties of a free, self-governing citizenry. Direct and regular elections have mutated it into a massive welfare-state theft system, with our "representatives" reduced to squabbling over who's able to steal the most in their politicial-spoils system.

US Senator's used to be appointed by State Government's also, until someone noted that the appointee system only encouraged contempt for the will of the voting public.

Sic, sic, sicsicsic. Sadly, grammatical ignorance has required me to once again call out The Angry Flower:

[CFC__VRWC]

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

It's going to be a very close vote, I'm afraid. Anyone who thinks NARAL and the NYT are just going to go quietly into the night after getting busted on the adoption records is nuts. If anything, they'll just try harder and sink lower to dig up dirt on Roberts. I have no doubt they will succeed in peeling off a few GOP senators when it comes time to vote. Interesting how once again Farah and the far left are on the same page.

[Larry Lucido]

Thank's.

[Hank Rearden]

Hah!

[cksharks]

If you get a vote then vote no!

[Tacis]

OK, Coulter, Farah and there was some one else. But, so what? There are some issues that Roberts sees differently than you do. I certainly see some issues differently than many of you.

The point that conforts me, and I don't know this as fact, but I assume that W or his people have talked to Rehnquist about Roberts. Roberts clerked for Rehnquist so his core beliefs and talents are known to the Chief Justice. Rehnquist wants his own legacy to be nurtured and surely, he must have had a voice before the nomination.

Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas are W's go-to guys on the court. Thomas and Cheney are reportedly close friends. There has to have been some "what do you think of..." kind of discussions about Roberts and 2 or 3 others.

Also remember, there may always be Rove's fine Italian hand in something like this. Finally, who would Coulter and Farah have selected, guaranteeing that there would never be a lurch we considered unacceptable? Bork is too old and Ken Starr probably wouldn't leave Pepperdine.

[cksharks]

I am glad you have so much more knowledge than the founding fathers.

[cksharks]

Hell no.

[abclily]

No, it doesn't concern me. President Bush knows what he is doing. He gets to pick. He has the finesse to make the right choice. Others may prefer different candidates, but they do not get to nominate. President Bush has made an intelligent choice, and Roberts will be confirmed. Some may have expected Bush to nominate a perfect person? This unreasonable expectation on the part of some does concern me.

[oldbrowser]

the Los Angeles Times broke the story

the LA Times is a partisan rag, why would anyone believe anything they have to say ?

[rog4vmi]

Cite to me then the cases that you maintain so something other than a constructionist record.

I defy you to find one. On the contrary, there is a plethora of information to support the notion that he is indeed a conservative jurist.

I, for one, am getting damn tired of people castigating this man as some sort of squish -- when there is a vast record stating otherwise.

[nothingnew]

I used to belong to JBS and left that group when I could not accept every conclusion they had come to...

Interesting. So, do you belong to a group now where you accept every conclusion they make?

"I don't care who you are, that's funny".

FMCDH(BITS)

[rcrngroup]

What do you mean he didn't accept the Pro Bono case to assist in Homer vs Evan, to overturn the Colorado state amendment. Roberts not only accepted it, he accepted it eagerly! If he was a truly principled conservative and viewed homosexuality/gay/lesbians as a moral aberration, I don't think he would have accepted this case at all.

Roberts also has stated that he views Roe vs Wade as the settled law of the land (not just as an appellate nominee, but recently as well) and would not look to overturn precedent. Of course for liberal/activists any conservative predendent can be overturned at will... just don't mess with liberal/activist precedents.

In my opinion Roberts is a far cry from constitutional-originalists such as Scalia and Thomas. So far his comments, his pro bono work, his cozying up to the lunatic left wing fringe, show him to be more aligned with O'Conner-Kennedy-Souter than the conservative views of Scalia and Thomas. 7 of the last 10 Republican SCOTUS appointees have been moderate-liberal activists, including 4 currently on the bench. Not a real good track record. President Bush could have (and should have) named a staunchly, principled conservative. Not a pragmatic moderate like Roberts. Unfortunately we won't know for sure until AFTER he is on the Court and we will see which way his decisions fall. I predict he will be a moderate-liberal appointee.... conservative on business issues and liberal on abortion - gay rights & marriage - 10 commandments - social & culteral issues. It will be too late then.

[republicofdavis]

"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!"

Too funny. Almost everyone on this board believes that the MSM distorts the news to benefit the left, and that the LA Times in particular is one of the very worst miscreants. Yet this time, Farah calls sincere mistrust of that source "shooting the messenger?"

What a maroon

[MikefromOhio]

Another day, another dose of WORLDNUTDAILY, The anti-BushiCrats, the Constipation Party and Joe Farah.

It's enough to make one wonder which side they are REALLY on, except their own. ESPECIALLY in the case of Joe Farah and his Weekly World News wannabe publication.

[BlueNgold]

Nice. Play into the liberals hands and follow their talking points. Well done!

[conservative blonde]

Thank you for an excellent post. We all must make our determinations by looking at what the person, in this case GWB, has done in the past. I am quite sure GWB knows how John Roberts will handle himself on the SC. I have no qualms in trusting GWB. He is a man of God and when God is on your side, what do you care who is against you.

[republicofdavis]

"Roberts not only accepted it, he accepted it eagerly!"

Where'd you get this from? Do you think it helps your point to make up something about his state of mind that you really have no idea about?

"If he was a truly principled conservative and viewed homosexuality/gay/lesbians as a moral aberration, I don't think he would have accepted this case at all."

This gets confused so many times because a "conservative philosophy" and a "conservative judicial philosophy" are used interchangeably, when they're different. I don't care what his personal opinions are about gays. I care what he thinks, as a judge, about the original intent of laws and the Constitution. His serving as an advocate for someone reveals nothing about his judicial philosophy. His performance as a judge reveals all you need to know about his judicial philosophy. Read the french fry case and you might be more reassured.

[BlueNgold]

An attorney who only handles cases with which they agree and in which they can fairly represent their personal beliefs is probably working for a not-for-profit or advocacy group.

I don't want the conservative version of Ginsburg, I want a fair minded intellectual and constitutionally sound legal scholar and an accomplished advocate.

One case on which he did ancillary consulting work is hardly a measure of his personal opinions or judicial philosophy.

[diverteach]

I'm starting to believe that Farah's past resume includes writing for the National Enquirer and Star.