The LA Times reported yesterday that Roberts did pro bono work for the winning side in the 1996 Romer v Evans case that struck down Colorado’s Amendment 2
This revelation that he may not be completely sold on the idea of a Theocracy may cause some heads to explode on the right. crosses fingers Does it also take some of the wind out of detractors who say he’s an ideologue? Might he actually turn out to be an apt Justice?
That’s interesting, but not really relevant. As an advocate, he argues the position for his client. You cannot infer much of anything about his personal views from this, just as you can’t infer his personal views if he had argued the opposite position.
Except that he volunteered to work on the project. The reason I quoted the quote I did was because the partner noted that working on this particular pro bono case was his choice to make. While he did not write the briefs, those who delivered the arguments said he gave valuable assistance review the briefs and helping develop the oral arugments.
Is it not reasonable to infer that his choice to voluntarily work on this case might show a bit of his thinking at least on the idea of equal protection?
Says an awful lot about the fundamentally ugly, hateful, and intellectually dishonest mindset of the forces marshalling against Roberts, given that there is precisely zero evidence that he has ever advocated for or ruled based upon any judicial or political philosophy that could (by even the most elastic form of hyperbolic rhetoric) be called a “theocracy.”
Words have meaning, or at least they used to.
I meant that Falwell and others on the Religious Right whom Bush consults want a Theocracy and hoped Roberts would support their drive. When the nomination was announced they were heaping praise upon him. For instance
Maybe.
But I spent a chunk of my life voluntarily defending people accused of crime - people that were, frankly, for the most part guilty. I assure you I wasn’t planning to advance the interests of the criminal community, or sympathetic to the desire of people to commit crimes.
When you accept pro bono work, you can choose to help a cause you believe in… or you can say, “We do pro bono because people on all sides of an issue need effective legal representation, and so I’ll step in and do my share.”
I’m all for an interpretation that shines favorably on Roberts, don’t get me wrong. But I think it’s questionable to take away anything from his zealous representation of a client except the neutral observation that he’s a damn fine lawyer… without personally favoring or disfavoring the cause he’s championing. I said this when people screamed about Roberts’ work done for the Reagan administration, and I say it again here.
First, I do not accept without citation that Falwell and others “want a theocracy” in any literal sense (that they may want government and judicial policy to become more consistent with their personal religiously-informed values is a more credible, but very different, proposition).
Second, you must understand that the RR in America is in many ways used to being the bitch of the GOP (and not vice versa). The national leadership wants their votes but doesn’t really share their views nor work any harder to promote them than is necessary to keep them from bolting (which isn’t too hard, given that religious people tend to be more respectful of authority, more ‘conservative’ in the sense of not liking radical change, and don’t really have anywhere else viable to go other than the GOP). The GOP can and sometimes does take their votes for granted. Over the past 30 years, they have seen more liberal or “moderate-liberal” Justices appointed than conservatives (including by GOP Presidents). They’ve made no progress on Roe other than the partial-birth ban, and that didn’t work out so well in the courts. Long story short . . . what Jerry Falwell might want and what he can get are two very different things, and the RR is used to taking whatever it is given with a smile. They know that the left and the judicial activists have so polarized and shifted the debate that the best they can hope for is a Judge who suggests or believes that restrictions on abortion need to be considered on a case-by-case basis (as opposed to the Chuck Schumer/R.B. Ginsburg position, which would be that there is a fundamental and immutable constitutional right, never to be reexamined, to abortion in any and all circumstances). Essentially, the RR is obliged to be ecstatic that there was a nominee who hadn’t explicitly endorsed Roe and who might be viable.
For whatever it’s worth, today there was a news article indicating that “as a legal adviser to President Reagan, Supreme Court nominee John Roberts joined a scathing denunciation of family-planning-clinic bombers and urged Reagan to stay out of an effort to post tributes to God in Kentucky schools.”
Apparently Reagan was considering pardoning the bombers, and Roberts opposed the idea. In the prayer case, Roberts thought it would be unconstitutional.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002421727_roberts05.html?syndication=rss
Ed
When O’Connor announced her retirement, Falwell’s “Moral Majority Coalition” set up the following petition.
You can read the group’s mission on their website
Sounds like a Theocracy to me.
If it quacks …
Pat Robertson:
Randall Terry has this to say:
Need more?
Interesting tidbit - the NY Times has confirmed that they contacted lawyers to see if they can get access to the {sealed}adoption records of Roberts’ two small children.
As an adoptive father myself, I consider this well over the line of decency, and call for the dismissal of whoever suggested it.
Points for debate: Could there be any reason for this besides digging for dirt? Which areas, if any, are not fit subjects for media investigation?
Regards,
Shodan
Here’s the quote from your cite, and it is incorrect to state that Reagan was considering pardoning the bombers, unless you have some other evidence:
And I agree with Huerta. The introduction of “Theocracy” into the OP is about as appropriate as the recent thread linking Rove with Treason. Actually, less so. Iran is a Theocracy.
I do. The constitution clearly states
Anyone praising that document sure ain’t advocating Theocracy.
It would be wise to just retract that exageration, lest this thread become hopeless hijacked along this indefensible line of argument.
Which of the above Religious Righties would you say doesn’t support a Christian Theocracy? If they only want Christians as leaders and expect laws to support morality, how is it different than a theocracy in anything but name?
My answer is twofold (and perhaps surprising given that I’ve put a jihad on the reflexive anti-Roberts crowd):
Yes, the inspiration was clearly to dig for dirt, and is in the spirit of the partisan witch hunt that liberals have turned confirmation battles into; but
There may still be a legitimate motivation for asking the questions (despite the fact that the N.Y.T. was impelled by less-honorable impulses). We all know that the adoption “market” poses some troubling issues of baby-brokering, etc. M/M Roberts adopted two very white looking infants. The reality is that white healthy infants are at a premium in the adoption market, and various forms of chicanery have been practiced by both middlemen and would-be adoptive parents to increase their odds of getting the child(ren) they want. These stories are common enough (and the moral murkiness of many of the foreign adoption markets poses enough questions) that it is not completely unreasonable to ask whether the Roberts’s apparent ability to rather rapidly secure “prize” babies (sorry to put it that way, but in the brutal marketplace of adoption, white infants are indeed like a golden ticket compared to other more-numerous categories), and from an area (Latin America) not known for its preponderance of blond Caucasians, might have had something to do with “shortcuts” (which might or might not be legal or ethical – I know there is a huge debate on just how big a “support” payment can be to a mother before it begins to look like a “baby price”).
We know that affluent professionals in the U.S. have in many instances come to believe that they should get what they want, regardless of inconvenient rules or laws. I am sure that plenty of politicians, and judges (including conservatives as well as liberals), have hired illegal nannies or housekeepers (as we’ve seen), or maybe even jumped the queue to expedite the adoption process. I do not think this entitlement mentality is irrelevant. I do think it is potentially-pertinent to whether a judge would be principled and follow the rules of jurisprudence even when he found them inconvenient (and the failure to do so by the judicial activists is what got us into the mess we’re in today). Nor would I give a free pass to a judge who had the “right” political or judicial philosophy (based on my own preferences) if I found that he thought the immigration laws, or the normal procuedures for adopting children, or any other frequently-flouted rule, didn’t apply in his personal life.
None of this is to say anyone has shown any evidence that Judge Roberts is in fact guilty of any queue-jumping or illegality in his adoptions. But I have a hard time classifying this possibility as per se irrelevant and off-limits to inquiry.
The quote from Randall Terry could be considered advocating Theocracy, but can we have an original source for the quote, and can you back up your statement that Bush “consults” him on policy matters? Remember, you’re referring to:
Not just any old whacko you can dredge up a quote from.
TERRY PREACHES THEOCRATIC RULE ''NO MORE MR. NICE CHRISTIAN" IS THE PRO-LIFE ACTIVIST’S THEME FOR THE ‘90S.
After years of trying to shut down abortion clinics, Randall Terry now has bigger plans: He wants to impose a theocracy, the rule of a state by God, on the United States. He’s had it up to his eyebrows with the legions of namby-pamby so-called- Christian pantywaists who preach tolerance of others’ beliefs. For Terry and the followers he would recruit, the theme of the '90s is No More Mr. Nice Christian. "I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I…
The rest of the article is at this site.
And Bush consuts with Randall how often…?
I must say, I’m very impressed. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a link quite so FUBARed. 
Remarkably enough, if you cut and paste it, it works!
:eek: It does!