08/09/2005
Conservative group to oppose John Roberts nomination because of his behind-the-scenes work on Evans v. Romer case in '96. In light of Roberts' work on this case, many far right groups are saying he's just not intolerant enough.
Posted 6:29 PM EST by Andy Towle in Elsewhere | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
is it just me or does this seem like its extremely well calculated by the Bush administration. Basically he's got us supporting Roberts because the people that are attacking him (radical conservative groups) are our enemies. THe dialog here is no longer about "is he good for the court" and is now "look at the republicans fighting each other". Great diversion that I'm sure the bush team knew would happen...
Posted by: Scott | Aug 9, 2005 7:25:47 PM
From last Friday's Tucker Carlson:
CARLSON: It makes me think that the people who have commented on this so far have no clue what they‘re talking about.
MADDOW: Hmm.
CARLSON: Conservatives, spurred on by the White House, have said, he‘s great; he‘s one of us.
They don‘t know that, right? And the left has gone completely bananas. The head of the Human Rights Campaign wrote a piece, the headline, “Anti-Gay Extremists Trying to Gain A Stranglehold on Government,” implying this guy is an anti-gay extremist. Neither side knows what it‘s doing.
Jerry Falwell, I notice you wrote a piece supporting Mr. Roberts. Are you rethinking that?
FALWELL: Oh, not at all.
You know, I—if I were an attorney, I‘d certainly fight for the right of gays or anyone else to be employed or be housed wherever they wished to be housed. I may not agree with the lifestyle. And I don‘t. But that has nothing do with the civil rights of that member of our—that part of our constituency.
John Roberts would probably have been not a very good lawyer if he had not been willing, when asked by his partners in the law firm to assist in guaranteeing the civil rights of employment and housing to any and all Americans.
CARLSON: But wait a second. I thought conservatives are always arguing against special rights for gays. And the idea is that...
FALWELL: Well, housing and employment are not special rights. I think—I think the right to live somewhere and to live where you please or to work where you please, as long as you‘re not bothering anybody else, is a basic right, not a—not a special right.
MADDOW: I think—I‘m happy to agree with you on this.
I mean, I think that if you look at Romer v. Evans, it‘s pretty hard to say that you‘re against the decision in Romer v. Evans that was originally arrived at. I mean, Scalia and Thomas were definitely against it. But the fact is, this—this—this case was about...
CARLSON: And Rehnquist.
MADDOW: And Rehnquist. I think you‘re right there—was—this case was about whether or not you can put an ad in the paper that says, I want to rent this apartment, but no gays need apply, or, I want to put up a for-hire sign that says, no lesbians will be hired for this job. If you think that‘s an American value and that we ought to be supporting that, then you‘re with the minority in Romer v. Evans. If you‘re not, then you‘re on the side of John Roberts.
CARLSON: I‘m—of course, I‘m not even arguing that.
MADDOW: Right.
CARLSON: I‘m merely saying, this gives us a window into Judge Roberts‘ thinking and it suggests that he‘s not nearly as conservative as his critics and his supporters have suggested. And I think that, if he winds up being a Tony Kennedy clone on the Supreme Court, we shouldn‘t be surprised. I won‘t be.
FALWELL: Well, Tony—Tucker, I‘m very conservative. I think I‘m to the right of most people you know, but...
CARLSON: Not to the right of me, but yes.
FALWELL: But civil—civil rights for all Americans, black, white, red, yellow, the rich, poor, young, old, gay, straight, et cetera, is not a liberal or a conservative value. It‘s an American value that I would think that we pretty much all agree on.
Rachel Maddow nearly fell off her chair. We've come a long way people when Jerry Falwell says something like that and continues to support Roberts.
The left, specifically the gay left, have been completely disingenuous when they labeled Roberts an ultra-conservative. Both the HRC and Lambda Legal were well aware of his pro-bono work on Romer. Hell, he personally coached the lawyers on how to handle Scalia and Thomas! But see this isn't about us. It's about blind leftist ideology, raising money and hatred.
This man did work for us on one of the most significant gay rights cases in recent history, but because he's Bush's man, HE MUST BE STOPPED.
Posted by: Mitch | Aug 9, 2005 7:35:26 PM
it could be a stunt, but my gut tells me that this group is just whacko and naive. as i understand it, roberts' participation in preparation for the oral arguments of the roemer matter was for all intents and purposes limited to some stylistic and rhetorical coaching. he helped in rehersals. the supreme court bar is very small. all the lawyers help eachother out. it's customary, and you WANT other players to ask your help on this kind of stuff. i fell pretty sure that really liberal advocates have probably helped out on really conservative issues. this group probably doesn't know that. its members probably don't know these things either. the leadership is really crazy. of course, that won't stop their members from applauding the leadership's ideological purity by sending more and more money. the first big christian group that openly advocates theocracy is gonna make a LOT of money.
Posted by: anthony in sf | Aug 9, 2005 7:40:46 PM
mitch -- you have to admit that what falwell said is surprising.
Posted by: anthony in sf | Aug 9, 2005 7:44:16 PM
I dunno Anthony...
From the LA Times:
"Jean Dubofsky, the lead lawyer for gay rights activists challenging the Colorado initiative, told The Times that Roberts gave her "absolutely crucial" advice on how to argue the case before the Supreme Court."
"Absolutely crucial" is not routine "helping out." My understanding is that his help was specifically targeted at how to handle Scalia and Thomas to neutralize the impact of their questioning on the other justices.
Posted by: Mitch | Aug 9, 2005 7:46:25 PM
Anthony,
Oh absolutely! I almost fell out of my chair. I actually got a bit choked up and my BF came in the room and asked me why I was crying over Jerry Falwell.
Posted by: Mitch | Aug 9, 2005 8:20:47 PM
Wow, what Falwell said is REALLY surprising. What a long way we come. That's great.
Posted by: Mike | Aug 9, 2005 8:39:32 PM
Sorry kids but Falwell supports Roberts just as much as Pat Robinson supported the Chinese's governments two child (In short abortion in China) when he realized the Chinese would band his network there and therefore lose a shit load of money.
Sorry but Falwell is like every Religious Right zeigeist; they can be bought easier then you think.
BTW: Where's the link to that transcript?
Posted by: Damon | Aug 9, 2005 9:34:20 PM
Mitch, yes he probably needs to be stopped from getting a seat on the high court, in part because he's Bush's choice, but largely for likely being too far to the right of the mainstream. As even Falwell's statements attest, you have to be pretty far to the right wing extreme to not agree with atleast treating gays as human beings with atleast some equal rights.
To believe that it is OK to support Roberts simply because he help gays out on one of the most important equal rights cases of the 20th century smack of one-issuism. Too many on the right and left practice it, supporting or opposing a candidate solely upon their specific stance on abortion, gay rights or the "war" on terror, etc.
Supreme Court Justices deal with general and often vague or incomplete/imprecise language in the Constitution but are asked to apply it to specific cases. In that sense, it is not all together extrodinary that, like most Americans, his general concept of equality requires states to not pass laws bestowing unfavorable legal status to an unpopulare minority. Its possible to think that and not support equality when it comes to marriage or even private consensual relations between adults of the same sex. O'Connor atleast supported the latter even if she didn't the former. With Roberts, even the later is uncertain.
But the general concept of equality pales to Roberts general concept of privacy and the rights that derive therefrom. Roberts has approvingly quoted Justice Black's dissent in Griswold v Connecticut where the Court recognized the right to privacy and determined that it included the right of a married couple to have and use contraceptive devices or methods in the privacy of their own home. Think about that. Roberts agrees with a judge that argued it is OK for the state to prohibit you and your partner, much less your lawfully wedded spouse, from using contraception and that the state my punish such "crimes" with incarceration.
Do you think Roe v Wade and Lawrence v Texas are safe with that kind of person on the Court? And all the talk of Roberts having said Roe is settled law is just that, talk. HE WOULD SIT ON THE SUPREME COURT. While lower court judges are bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court is not. It may overturn precedence at will as it did in overturning Bowers v Hardwick. IOW, bye-bye Roe, bye-bye Lawrence.
That's probably the worst of it, but there is more. Roberts apparently agrees with the Rehnquist Court's activist war on federalism including the legal fiction of absolute state sovereign immunity. The Rehnquist Court has ruled that if a state republishes something for which you hold the copyright, even if it does so knowingly and with reckless disregard for your copyrights, you cannot sue the state for damages since the state has sovereign immunity and Congress cannot lift that immunity. Same thing if a state violates a patent that you have the rights for. They ruled you can't sue a state for damages if they fire you for being disabled because the ADA doesn't apply to states becuase of sovereign immunity despite the ADA. The Court dismissed a Congressional report documenting extensive cases of discrimination against the disabled as not a Congressional fiunding, but an agency report not worth noting. The only time in recent history the Court has allowed this immunity to be pierced is because of O'Connor. And the suit against the state involved...any guesses? sex discrimination. No O'Connor as the fifth vote, bye-bye suing your state for sex discrimination.
I could go on and on, but the point is, while Roberts may be more moderate than most of the choices Bush could have made, he's still worth opposing. The only pass I can see giving him is if the left wants to hold out for a more important fight on a seat that would radically change the makeup of the Court such as a Stevens retirement, resignation or death would cause.
Posted by: Craig | Aug 9, 2005 9:56:17 PM
Here ya go:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8870977/
We'll see Damon, but really, if you're going to comment on current affairs, please get it right. It's China's one child policy. It's a ban, not a band and Pat Robertson hasn't owned a TV network since 1997.
Posted by: Mitch | Aug 9, 2005 10:06:02 PM
Ugh Mitch.
How ugly your getting. The general idea hasn't been refuted yet you try your darnest. You try to pick me apart yet your trying somehow to prove that Fucking Falwell has somehow become gay-friendly or gay-tolerant.
If your gonna write anything, can you at least not be "Roy Cohn's buttboy?"
;)
Angels in America reference btw.
Posted by: Damon | Aug 10, 2005 7:52:14 PM
BTW Craig, your not going to get anything from Mitch. He only gets on to be the Right's buttboy. He spends his time trying to somehow prove the left is the bad guys when all their guilt of is being overprotective. And what does he have to say about the Right? Well, he never says conservativism is the remedy, or even libertarianism (Which might as well be self-hating conservatives). All he does is preach the evils of the left. I get enough of this in Texas...
Posted by: Damon | Aug 10, 2005 7:58:57 PM
Damon, I apologize for being snippy.
You're right though, although there are wingnuts on both sides, I do think that the left is far more dangerous than the right. The left wants to alter the structure of our country. Conservatism seeks to maintain the status quo or, unfortunately in some circumstances, move us backward.
This is not some knee jerk conclusion I've come to or brainwashing from my parents. This has come about over a long period of time and some deep thought about issues.
Nothing sets me off faster than group think and very few groups are more guilty of it than the disaffected minorities than compose the bulk of the Democratic party today. I imagine that Andy would agree that his comments section would be pretty freakin' boring if everybody just came in here and said, "That's right Andy!"
Posted by: Mitch | Aug 10, 2005 9:59:28 PM