| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"rob wade" |
| Date: |
10 Aug 2005 12:38:55 PM |
| Object: |
No on Roberts |
No on Roberts
WorldNetDaily
Joe Farah
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.
.
|
|
| User: "BYTE ME!" |
|
| Title: Re: No on Roberts |
11 Aug 2005 06:39:49 PM |
|
|
rob wade wrote:
No on Roberts
WorldNetDaily
Joe Farah
=20
=20
=20
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.
=20
<right wing drivel snipped>
=2E..Blah...Blah...Blah
Just the putrid rantings of another Kooky Kristian Kunt.
They would only be satisfied with an appointee that uses their=20
interpretation of the bible as a guide to judicial decisions.
--=20
Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none=20
more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant=20
to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called=20
Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too =
inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only =
atheists and fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of=20
despotism; and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests; but so far=20
as respects the good of man in general, it leads to nothing here or=20
hereafter. =96Thomas Paine
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
