Judge Roberts and the Romer Case
From none other than Matt Drudge, who has been the object of much speculation:
"We don’t know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever... Oh, yeah...we know he's argued cases before the supreme court. big deal; so has Larry Flynt's attorney."
So declares conservative columnist Ann Coulter in a new dispatch set for release.
Air America Radio via Randi Rhodes declared that Coulter in reality does not care about many conservative issues. It’s a good guess that she doesn’t. It may also be a close guess that in regard to many issues Geo. W. Bush in his heart of hearts is very similar.
The New York Times very recently, i.e. in Friday’s issue, declared that Mr. Bush’s nominee to replace Justice O’Connor gave guidance on a high court case protecting gay men and lesbians from state-sanctioned discrimination. Mr. Bush even before he became President has publicly been against gay rights, especially same sex marriage rights, yet it seems that there has been a dance around this issue from the get go, which gives credence to the idea that he may very well be pandering to the neo-con religious right, and it is exactly that which Ms. Coulter does according to Ms. Rhodes of Air America Radio. Ms. Coulter’s hypocrisy notwithstanding, the specter of Mr. Bush’s similar approach casts doubt on his credentials as a downright neo-conservative Xtian. It is a possibility that might make his positions downright opportunistic. Esther Kaplan in With God on Their Side made this point in the chapter, “Whose Gay Agenda?” Assuredly there is much more within Mr. Bush’s governance to criticize and disassemble than his approach to homosexual rights, but the two sided approach should definitely be considered by the public who support Mr. Bush and those who do not. It may be exactly how he approaches everything.
There is no incompatibility with traditional conservative thinking and homosexual rights per se, because traditional conservatism upholds individual freedoms and federal government non-interference. Traditonal conservatism upholds the separation of Church and State. Traditional conservatism does not care if someone has an abortion, it just doesn’t want to pay for it.
Towleroad, a favored BLOG in these parts has something to say about the issue of Judge Roberts’ neo-conservative credentials.
It just may be that he is a rational, logical jurist with the mind of a lawyer, meaning that he lives his professional life divorced from his Roman Catholic Religion and perhaps his political affiliation – a true successor to Ms. O’Day who served her term as a rational, logical jurist.
It is important to see who on the conservative side is not 100% supportive. Of course there is the aforementioned Ms. Coulter's opinion which paints Mr. Roberts in a somewhat positive hue. Perhaps Mr. Roberts is not a neo-con opportunist. He may after all be a rational conservative jurist. Honest.
The New York Times gave us this:
While some conservatives … said they were unconcerned [about Roberts’ involvement in the Romer case] others signaled that the report had at least raised questions in their eyes.
James C. Dobson chairman of the evangelical group Focus on the Family said Judge Roberts’ work in the case was ‘not welcome news to those of us who advocate for traditional values.’ …
Colleen Parro executive director of the Republican National Coalition for Life and one of the few conservatives to raise questions about Judeg Roberts said his work on the case was ‘cause for more caution and less optimism’ about his nomination.
Light a candle and do not curse the darkness.
Comments
WASHINGTON - A conservative group in Virginia said Tuesday it was withdrawing its support for Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' confirmation because of his work helping overturn a Colorado referendum on gays.
ADVERTISEMENT
The group, Public Advocate of the United States, is one of the first conservative organizations to announce anything but support for the judge
Eugene Delgaudio, the president of the group, said in an interview that he hopes his stance will prod others.
"I know that others feel the same way. I know they believe as I do. They're just not going to act," the 50-year-old Northern Virginia man said. "But once I've done it, then they can't claim that no one's opposing Roberts."
"We can't take our limited resources and put it toward a candidate who is not a strict constructionist when we were told he is," Delgaudio said.
The stance by his group, which describes itself as a pro-family organization, puts it in opposition to conservative groups that have endorsed Roberts. A number of liberal groups already oppose
President Bush's high court nominee.
Roberts met Tuesday with one senator who is undecided on his nomination, Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden, who said the nominee "would not look favorably" on Congress acting to intervene in an end-of-life case like
Terri Schiavo.
Wyden said Roberts told him during their hourlong meeting that Congress can prescribe standards, "but when Congress starts to act like a court and prescribe particular remedies in particular cases, Congress has overstepped its bounds," Wyden said.
Congress pushed through unprecedented emergency legislation aimed at prolonging Schiavo's life by allowing the case to be reviewed by federal courts. The courts rejected that effort.
Delgaudio said his group had planned to send out more than 1 million pieces of direct mail for Roberts, as well as work telephones, poll and conduct petition drives.
But now, "canceling our mail campaign is the least we can do," he said. He said he would poll his group to see if members want him to be neutral, spend money to oppose Roberts or reinstate support.
This is not the first time Delgaudio has gone up against the Bush administration. He criticized Vice President
Dick Cheney last year after the vice president, when asked about gay marriage, said, "Freedom means freedom for everyone."
Delgaudio said then: "'Freedom' is not embracing perversion."
The Colorado gay rights case involved Amendment 2, a constitutional amendment approved by voters in 1992 that would have barred laws, ordinances or regulations protecting gays from discrimination by landlords, employers or public agencies such as school districts.
Gay rights groups sued, and the
U.S. Supreme Court declared the measure unconstitutional in a 6-3 ruling in 1996.
Roberts' role in the case included helping develop a strategy and firing tough questions during a mock court session at Jean Dubofsky, a former Colorado Supreme Court justice who argued the case on behalf of the gay rights plaintiffs.
Arguments that Roberts' work on the case does not equal support for gay rights doesn't wash with Delgaudio.
"Nobody's forced to help your opponents," he said. "I can't believe that a senior attorney would voluntarily help somebody he doesn't agree with. I don't believe it. It's not credible."
Other conservative groups, including the
Traditional Values Coalition and Focus on the Family Action, the political arm of the Colorado Springs-based conservative Christian ministry Focus on the Family, are still supporting Roberts.
"We support President Bush and his choice for the Supreme Court, John Roberts," said the Rev. Lou Sheldon, founder of the Traditional Values Coalition.