Rah! Rah! Siss! Boom! Ba! Roberts Played Key Role In Helping Homosexuals Get Special Rights But Bush/GOP Cheerleaders Cheer On Insisting This Is No Big Deal
By John Lofton, Editor
“And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” — Matthew 15:14.
The “Washington Times” (8/6/05) has front-paged a story headlined: “Right Downplays Roberts’ Gay Aid.” And “WorldNetDaily.com” (8/5/05) has also run a news story about Roberts’ “gay aid” in the Supreme Court case Romer v. Evans. This story is headlined, in part: “Uneasy Conservatives Sticking With Roberts.”
But, of course. And these same folks will most likely continue to stick with Roberts no matter what. Why? Because these supposedly Christian conservatives are, first, Republican Party cheerleaders. Obviously lacking Biblical discernment, they imprudently and un-Christianly rushed to judgment on John Roberts seeking to convince us that President Bush’s first Supreme Court nominee walks on water. We’re now finding out that he does not.
But, as I say, these Christian “leaders” and organizations are, first, Republican Party cheerleaders. So, when Mr. Bush does what would have been outrageous and unacceptable had Mr. Clinton done it, these ostensible Christian conservatives continue to cheer and wave their pom-poms for Mr. Bush’s nominee.
To be sure, these folks could now do the right and Christian thing. They could admit that it would appear they were had. They could admit that they were wrong to rush to judgment regarding a man about whom they knew nothing of any substance when he was nominated.
But, alas, I see no sign that any such admissions will be forthcoming. Instead, the don’t-confuse-me-with-any-facts pro-Roberts cheerleaders continue to cheer for him. Their views towards Roberts continue to be — regardless of what is revealed about him — hear-no-evil, see-no-evil, speak-no-evil.
All of this blindness to the truth, though disgusting, is not surprising.
Remember: The role of cheerleaders is to cheer wildly and enthusiastically whether their team is ahead or behind — period. In fact,most of the time, cheerleaders have their backs to the game. They do not closely watch the game.Why should they? The facts of the game do not matter. Cheerleaders do not cheer because an individual play merits a cheer. No, cheerleaders are people who, in this context, are, quite literally, mindless.
And a lot of what the pro-Roberts cheerleaders have reportedly said about him helping homosexuals get special “rights” in Colorado is false and/or embarrassingly incoherent.
p>First, the false statements. On Fox TV’s “Hannity & Colmes” (8/05/05), Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center, said, flatly, about John Roberts helping the homosexuals prepare their case for special rights: “He didn’t prepare the brief. He didn’t help write the brief. He didn’t review the brief. He didn’t even read the brief. It was all done by the time he participated.”
p>But, this is false. In an interview, Jean Dubofsky, the lead attorney for the homosexuals, told me: “When he (Roberts) helped with the moot court argument he would have read the briefs.” In another interview, Walter Smith, Roberts’ boss at his law firm, the head of the pro bono department, told me: “He certainly read the briefs. Absolutely.” Noting that Roberts would have had to read the briefs to help the homosexuals prepare their arguments, he adds: “He would have read all the briefs with great care. And John would have had the briefs as we prepared our case.”
But Roberts did not have to help the homosexuals he helped as is pointed out in another article on this Web site.
This same “Times” article quotes Suzanne Goldberg, a lawyer with the homosexual legal group “Lambda” as saying that winning the Romer v. Evans case was the “single most important positive (sic, no make that sick) ruling in the history of the gay rights movement.” Tony Perkins could have learned all of this if he had done his own research instead of relying on, as he says, “the White House and surrogates” for his information.
In this same “Washington Times” story, it is said that while Judge Roberts did not write briefs for the homosexuals, or become deeply involved in preparing the case, he did review files and help prepare oral arguments for Lambda Legal without charge. He also played the role of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia in the mock trial.
Sounds like “aiding and abetting” the homosexuals to me, Mr. Perkins.
The “Times” also quotes Leonard A. Leo, a supposedly conservative lawyer working with the White House to confirm Judge Roberts, as saying: “The goal of the left here was to try driving a wedge between conservatives and a nominee.” Huh? It wasn’t “the left” that forced Roberts to help the homosexuals. He chose to do this. Wake up, please!
Mr. Leo, who is on leave from his post as executive vice president of the Federalist Society, adds: “The fact that Judge Roberts spent less than five hours playing Justice Scalia in a moot court doesn’t cause a lot of people to lose sleep.” But, Mr. Leo should be losing sleep because the 6-3 Romer v. Evans case the homosexuals won in the Supreme Court, with the crucial help of John Roberts, is, among other things, a blatantly un-Constitutional, anti-states’ rights, anti-Federalism ruling!
Still, the issue is not how many hours Roberts spent helping the homosexuals refine their arguments. The relevant questions are: Why did he do anything to help homosexuals argue for special rights? Why did he help — as he did — the homosexuals prepare answers to questions that might be asked by Supreme Court Justice Scalia?
Did you catch that? Roberts “simply helped” the homosexuals try to achieve special rights and override an amendment approved 53-47 percent by some 800,000 voters in Colorado. No big deal. As to what Roberts’ helping homosexuals has to do with there being “in the Supreme Court practice…a high level of collegiality,” I have no idea.
In the “L.A. Times” (8/5/05), Sekulow repeats his “collegiality” gibberish. Noting that Sekulow had “spent time explaining to conservatives that lawyers often consulted with other lawyers on cases, regardless of their personal convictions,” he is quoted as saying: “A lot of people are commenting who don’t know about Supreme Court practice. There’s a high degree of collegiality.” So, “a high degree of collegiality” in Supreme Court practice means helping homosexuals get special “rights?” Maybe, maybe not. But, if this is true, no Christian lawyer could ever engage in such “collegiality.”
On the “NBC Nightly News” (8/5/05), Sekulow is shown saying with, if you’ll pardon the expression, a straight face: “This was not a situation where [Roberts] was advocating a particular position. And that’s why I think that this is why this ended up the way it has. No one has withdrawn their support for John Roberts.”
But, of course, Roberts was helping homosexuals advocate a particular position — special “rights” for homosexuals. He did this very effectively. The homosexuals won their case. And they believe they won because of Roberts’ crucial help.
In this “WND” piece Janice Crouse — senior fellow at the Beverly LaHaye Institute, the think tank for Concerned Women for America — says her group does not, at this point, see Roberts’ involvement in the special-rights-for-homosexuals case as a serious problem. “We certainly have questions, but the evidence thus far does not cause us to take away any support,” she says.
Crouse says Roberts’ activity would be expected of a person in his position. “This was a very minor incident, a matter of fulfilling responsibilities as a partner in a major law firm,” she said. “If it appears that this is a matter of a pattern, that would be a concern.” She calls Roberts “a man who appears to be exceptionally well qualified and committed to interpreting the Constitution as written.”
p> But, once again, wrong. Roberts helping homosexuals was not “expected” of him. He helped the homosexuals voluntarily. He could have said no. And his help was not a “minor incident.” It was crucial to the homosexuals winning their case.
Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, told “WND” he has read enough of Roberts’ opinions to know that the judge’s involvement in the Romer case does not undermine his commitment to judicial restraint. “I am absolutely convinced that this does not suggest differently,” Fahling said. He added that, personally speaking, he could never be involved in such a case. “It seems [Roberts is] a faithful Catholic, and for him to be on the front end of a case that literally put a dagger squarely into the moral heart of America — there are as some incongruities there,” Fahling said.
Well, yes, some “incongruities” indeed, to put it mildly, since Roberts’ key role in helping homosexual get “special rights” was exactly that — putting “a dagger squarely into the moral heart of America.” And the majority opinion in Romer v. Evans was the opposite of “judicial restraint.” It was judicial activism run amok.
p> This “WND” piece reports that James Dobson’s “Focus on the Family Action” issued a statement saying that while the report about Roberts helping homosexuals “is certainly not welcome news to those of us who advocate for traditional values, it is by no means a given that John Roberts’ personal views are reflected in his involvement in this case.”
The group said, “At the time of Romer v. Evans, Roberts was a private-practice attorney expected by his firm to do pro-bono legal work. However, it is worth noting that it was not Roberts who recommended taking on this case; his minimal involvement was requested by a colleague, who served as the lead attorney, because that colleague so respected Roberts’ legal acumen. That’s what lawyers do — represent their firm’s clients, whether they agree with what those clients stand for or not.”
But, for the umpteenth time, this is not true! Roberts did not have to help the homosexuals. He could have said no. But, he chose, voluntarily, to help the homosexuals.
And Bush Administration double-talk spinners have tried the personal-views-don’t-matter nonsense to explain away Roberts helping homosexuals to get special rights. The Pittsburgh “Post-Gazette” (8/5/05) quotes White House press spokesman Erin Healey as saying about Roberts’ key role in helping the homosexuals: “As in any other case, it is wrong to equate legal work product with personal opinions.” Hmmmm. I wonder: Is this Healey’s “personal opinion” or just her view that’s part of her “work product” as a White House employee?
Mat Staver, who argued a Ten Commandments case before the Supreme Court earlier this year, says he believes Roberts’ involvement in the case needs to be addressed. “The fact that it was pro bono work — which is voluntary — should be of concern,” Staver told the “Baptist Press.” Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, said at Roberts’ level, “you wouldn’t be working on a project in a firm that you disagreed with.”
p> Yes, yes! Exactly! Thank you, Mat Staver!
Staver adds that Roberts’ answers to questions asked him by the Senate Judiciary Committee have been reassuring to conservatives. Staver said “it is not part of the judicial function to make the law” and “courts should not intrude into areas of policy making reserved by the Constitution to the political branches.” Judges, he said, “must be constantly aware that their role, while important, is limited. They do not have a commission to solve society’s problems, as they see them, but simply to decide cases before them according to the rule of law.”
In this “WND” report, one of the few conservatives to express reservations about Roberts after his nomination — Colleen Parro, executive director of the Republican National Coalition for Life — said his work on the Romer case was “cause for more caution and less optimism” about his nomination.
Finally, the “Washington Post” (8/5/05) quotes neoconservative William Kristol, editor of the “Weekly Standard,” as saying about Roberts helping homosexuals: “I don’t think this is serious. Most conservatives are very pleased….He has a long record, and has been very consistent.” Very consistent?! Roberts has been all over the lot, and on both sides, of many issues! Clearly, on this issue, Kristol’s “standard” is “weak.”
And speaking of Roberts having been on all sides of many issues, when John Kerry did this in the Presidential campaign, he was vehemently denounced and mocked by Christians and conservatives as a flip-flopper. So, why don’t these same people criticize Roberts as a flip-flopper?