What does SHE know?
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.
What does SHE know?
How on earth can you take anything Joe Farah says seriously? The guy is a total nutcase.
How about this nugget of tinfoil wisdom from Farah:
"There is a master plan for global governance being plotted in meetings of groups like the Council on Foreign Relations. You can read its reports. And, I believe this open-borders policy is a direct result of those plans, which have been secretly adopted by our highest leaders, including President Bush."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1455248/posts
Well for one thing re. Robert's eagnerness to work on this case
...."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."
Sounds like eagerness to me!
Secondly re. his judicial philosophy, apparently he cared little about his Pro Bono activities to assist in overturning a Colorado State constitutional amendment that resulted in Homer vs Egan now being used to overturn other states marriage amendments such as in the case of Nebraska. He doesn't sound like that much of a strict constitutional-originalist, certainly not like Scalia or Thomas.
It is enough to make one worry. Combined with the GOP's dismal record in picking Sup Court justices -- Reagan and Bush I combined for just two good picks out of five nominations -- then it is enough to make one pessimistic.
Assuming Bush couldn't get a justice confirmed because the nutters swayed some senators, the end result is the distinct liklihood that Bush would pick someone more "liberal" to get the votes on the other side of the aisle. Take that and smoke it Farah. Your leverage, and that of your ilk, is close to zero on this one. Deal with it.
This nut's column was already posted here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1458957/posts?page=254#254
This nut's column was already posted here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1458957/posts?page=254#254
"He doesn't sound like that much of a strict constitutional-originalist, certainly not like Scalia or Thomas."
You're confusing his role as an advocate with his role as a judge. As an advocate he used every argument available to represent his client. His judicial philosophy has thus far shown him to be the kind of judge we would both want, in the mold of Scalia and Thomas.
"...."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."
Sounds like eagerness to me!"
I bet you don't usually swallow whole MSM bilge like this, why are you doing it now? First, consider the source, the LA Times. Now look at the quote. It doesn't say what Smith said, it "characterizes" it. There's no actual quote from Smith.
This is the kind of lame MSM balderdash we usually eat for breakfast on FR. Why not now?
Farah admitted that all 55 Senators disagree with him. So he's irrelevent by his own admission. He also thinks Roberts should be denied a vote, so he's OK with the lunatic 'Rat Senator Filibluster crowd. At least he has a few outliers on this thread to keep him company when the moon is full.
This would be like throwing gasoline on a smoldering ember. The whole objective in having appointed judges was to free them from the partisan politics of electioneering. The Founders considered the power of the courts to be circumscribed and never intended to install a judicial oligarchy.
If you think the court sucks now, just put four or five of them up for election in 2006 and then watch the twists and turns and distortions emerge.
An often forgotten fact is that USSC judges are not appointed "for life." They are appointed and serve contingent on "good behavior." Supreme Court Judges who subvert the Constitution and pervert the laws are subject to impeachment and should be actively put on notice that this is an option which is on the table.
Because it doesn't fit the current bash-Bush mob.
You could also add he's also against abortion, the aclu, homosexual marriage, islamic terrorism, al qaeda nukes going off in American cities, hate crime laws, and an activist USSC legislating from the bench.
I seem to remember a large number of liberal groups circling the wagons with a President in the late 90's. Conservatives couldn't figure out why they would do that. Seems conservatives are doing the same with Roberts with regard to the Pro Bono work, especially if his coaching and guideance put this case over the top.
So it appears the shoe is on the other foot with regard to the circling the wagons issue. But conservatives have a clear conscience cause the can blame the outing on the MSM. Yeah, that's the ticket. Muddy the water with a blame the MSM.
Yeah, sure blame the times cause they are liberal instead of discerning whether or not this is something that crossed the lines in many areas. States rights? Advamcement of the gay agenda (they claim this was a bell weather decision). I'm not saying toss this guy out. But to simply write it off cause it's from a liberal rag is irresponsible. Remember, it was the NYT that broke White Water.
Err, close. He did some work with Rush's first book and helped Rush with a newpaper column when Rush was in Sacramento.
It's called . . . oh never mind. I don't want to give it away.
I have no problems with the asking of tough questions. We are not lemmings. Everything should be vetted. We on the Right normally have robust debates and as a rule we seek to do what is right regarding the country, the Constitution, and each other. Conversely, it is also our greatest weakness.
But conservatives have a clear conscience cause the can blame the outing on the MSM. Yeah, that's the ticket. Muddy the water with a blame the MSM.
With your smarminess aside, it's obvious that the Left always seeks to divide the Right. And this is our weakness. It's so easy to be divided. To easily divided, truth be told.
And, as I stated before, this heat-seeking missile hit the target perfectly.
Well, I don't speak for them, but here are three names that were on Dubya's list who would be more solid: Samuel Alito, J. Michael Luttig, J. Harvie Wilkinson. Solid records, hard to shoot at, and very originalist. But no, Bush has to got for Stealth Roberts and the Gay Case.
Well, for one thing, the cae Farah cited is a case of judicial activism of the worst kind. And Roberts worked (for free) to get it done. He has said that he would Roe v. Wade is "settled law." Now, Plessy v. Ferguson was on the books about 20 years loinger than Roe has been, and even many people who support the outcome of Roe (including Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg) have said that Roe is bad law. Was Plessy settled law?
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.