Jay Sekulow, a leader in the movement to establish a narrow Christian theocracy in America, told his constituency that there's a high degree of “collegiality” in Appellate Court practice. He is implying that those that know the practice would regard his actions as trivial and unimportant, sort of like holding the door for a liberal as she walked out of a building.
Sean Rushton, director of the right-wing Committee for Justice, acted if the pro bono work by Roberts never took place, and called it a “red herring” meant to divide the right. I would assume by dividing the right, he meant between bigots and non-bigots.
Focus on the Family, the premier hate organization masking itself in religious dogma, portrayed Roberts as a helpless, powerless puppet of his law firm. "That's what lawyers do — represent their firm's clients, whether they agree with what those clients stand for or not," it said in a statement.
It is clear why the Republicans and their allies have begun a campaign to prove that John Roberts is an intolerant man. To a large extent, the conservative movement in this country has been tied to homophobia and bigotry. The “southern strategy” which is still alive, has morphed into an additional “gay bashing” strategy, and any threat to that strategy on the Supreme Court will anger and alienate their base.
The White House rushing to assure their constituencies that Roberts is not a tolerant man is both disgusting and beyond the pale. In the end, this tying of Republicanism to the lost cause of bigotry will earn the scorn of future generations. In the meantime, though, it puts Roberts in a bind to renounce Romer once and for all. Maybe he could go out and beat up some “fags” at a gay pride parade to win back the full support of his base.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - alethinos59
Wow... The Repugnants might seriously pull something, or several somethings trying to both back pedal and forward pedal and side step this thing... Call the stretcher bearer now - I can see a DOUBLE groin pull on this one!
2 - billy
i wonder if there is any relevance to the fact it was pro bono. couldnt he have got out of it if he really hated gays? maybe he isnt a bigot, but Bush has never failed to dissapoint, so I wouldnt be too sure of it.
3 - Silas Kain
I continue to think that Mr. Roberts will make a fine Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. I don't agree with all he stands for but I do believe that his passion for the Constitution overrides any personal dogma. We should be more concerned about the replacement for Justice Rehnquist. President Bush made an informed decision on nominating Judge Roberts that I support wholeheartedly.
4 - billy
"I continue to think that Mr. Roberts will make a fine Associate Justice of the Supreme Court."
we know so little about this guy, its hard to say.
on some issues he was to the right of ted olsen. on others he helped out gay rights cases.
where exactly does he stand?
5 - Scott
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.
6 - Balletshooz
Good point, maybe Bush is playing us for fools. The Romer case, however, and Roberts' participation in it was left off his disclosure form for Congress and only later discovered.
But the right, mostly isnt fighting, they are keeping tight lipped and "crossing their fingers". Although it does make it a little harder for the left to attack him.
7 - Silas Kain
Actually, I am leaning more toward believing that President Bush is far less conservative than he leads his minions to believe. G.W. Bush and his henchman Karl Rove are opportunists. They saw an opening, grabbed hold of it, and made it their own. If that is actually what happened I will be the first to say that G.W. Bush is a more brilliant politician than I ever gave him credit for. Now, you may ask yourselves why I am coming to this conclusion. Do the research. He is Barbara Bush's son far more than the son of George Herbert Walker Bush. Matron Mamma Bush is shrewd. And, for the record, she is far more liberal than the conservatives would let on. The President is looking for his place in history. Even he nows that a fascist conservative would reduce his Administration's historical stature.
8 - Balletshooz
I agree, Bush is smarter than people realize. In essence he is a real good actor, he plays a dumb, tough, cowboy on TV and, like a horror movie where the viewer gets scared even though it isnt real, people buy it and sort of forget he is a rich, son-of-a-president, who went to yale, and worked on a political campaign instead of going to Vietnam.
You may be right about Bush, but I believe he truly wants to overturn Roe and he is doing this with that goal in mind, and that is what potentially is troubling about Roberts to me.
9 - Victor Lana
In today's NY DAILY NEWS, columnist Richard Cohen addresses this matter. In part he says,
"Specifically, he seems to harbor no prejudice against gays and lesbians who are, as we all know, anathemas to social conservatives who are anti-gay and pro-Bush, in about equal measures of enthusiasm. Roberts, amazingly and inexplicably, seems to be a man of tolerance."
I'm no big fan of Roberts, but this story makes me think he might be better than anyone thought (at least if you're not on the far right).
The full Cohen article can be found here
10 - billy
i hope so too. well all have to cross our fingers because it is doubtful anything meaningful will come out on this guy in the senate before he is inevitably confirmed.
11 - Silas Kain
Be hopeful, Balletshooz. As someone who has followed Barbara Bush closely over the years I have come to learn that she is quite a reasonable woman who plays the game very well. Remember, she is a descendant of a President and has grown up in the political world. G.W. Bush has always been looked upon as having been influenced more by his mother than anyone. I don't think we wants Roe overturned at all. I think he plays the game and will continue to do so until he leaves office.
12 - Balletshooz
He can definitely play that game. He has that ability to fire up those voters who believe strongly on those issues (gay marriage, abortion), then amazingly he does very little toward the issues once he is in office besides lip service. I think you might be right.
13 - Matthew T. Sussman
Balletshooz, I thought you plagiarized this column from Daniel Cohen at first.
But you did link to it, although you misled us to believe that some of your statements were in your own words. They are not.
It's borderline. Shame on you, and be more careful next time.
14 - Natalie Davis
When I first heard about Roberts' work on the No on 2 campaign, I had my reservations. I still do. Looks too much like a diversion tactic to me. They know that ultimately the right-wingers will side with them. However much the fundies wail, the Shrubbies know they have them in their pocket. But if they can convince some lefties to let down their guard and give a nod to Roberts, they win and hail a "bipartisan victory." I don't buy it. Smells like the work of Rove-ian thinking to me.
15 - billy
this just in, from one news article:
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.
Maybe he isnt loony. How did Scalia vote in the Schiavo case?
16 - Dave Nalle
>>Thus, there is some evidence existing now that John Roberts does not harbor prejudice and bigotry against gay men and lesbians, as are the stated policies of the Bush administration and the current incarnation of the Republican Party.<<
Beautiful lie, Balletshooz. Just brilliant. Do you know what George W. Bush's stated position on homosexuality and gay marriage is?
Here are some quotes.
On homosexuality: "I do know that we have a choice to make in America and that is to treat people with tolerance and respect and dignity. It's important that we do that. I also know in a free society people, consenting adults can live the way they want to live. And that's to be honored."
On civil unions: " "I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so."
Sure sounds like a bigot to me. Well, someone does anyway - not Bush, but the nom de blog begins with 'B'.
Dave
17 - Dave Nalle
Silas, your comments in #7 are so dead on that it's scary. I'm glad to see that I'm not the only person who realizes this. All you have to do is look back through some of Bush's history to find quotes like the ones I used above to demonstrate how moderate he really is.
Dave
18 - Natalie Davis
I understand what you're saying, Mr. Nalle, but Dubya is also on record as being in support of amending the constitution to forbid marriage equality across the land, which, if passed, would supersede states' rights. It's a fact that whatever he may think or say behind closed doors, publicly he is anti-gay and against equality for all under civil law.
19 - Dave Nalle
Except that he has publicly said he is not anti-gay and in favor of functional equality. The only point where he falls short of everything a gay voter could want is in endorsing actual gay marriage. And on that score he's with the vast majority of the population. Most people would like to see gays in committed civil relationships recognized by law and with all the attendant benefits. They just want them differentiated on a purely semantic basis from traditional marriage. That's Bush's position as well, and while I realize it's not 100% perfect, it puts him far, far beyond being a bigot on the issue of gay rights, as was stated in the article.
Dave
20 - Natalie Davis
Just because he says something does not make it so. If Dubya approves of limits on equality for a subset of the citizenry, IMO, he is anti-gay. So is anyone who agree with him. If all are supposed to be treated equally under law, in order for America to be what it claims to be, everyone has to be treated equally under law. This semantics BS is a smokescreen to cover the current state of America and the lie that equality for all under law exists. If everyone was equal under law, there would be marriage equality under civil law (leaving churches to do what they will for their rites). Or civil union would be the only option available to couples who marry at city halls or offices for justices of the peace. Anything less is not equal, period. And if there isn't real equality (not merely "functional equality," which is a steel-toed kick in the groin), everything else doesn't matter.
21 - gonzo marx
but you do admit that the Shrub has stated publicly he would go for an actual Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage?
i do understand that much of what he has said in private is quite moderate...unfortunatly, it's what he DOES in public, using his Office, that scares the shit out of some folks
pardon me for not trusting the slimy pigfucker farther than i can throw Texas with my dick...
did i say that out loud?
Excelsior!
22 - Matthew T. Sussman
Agreed. I'm against a constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. It's a state's right issue.
And what if he moderately speaking in public but secretly in favor of hard right religious and conservative values?
IMO, scarier and sneakier.
23 - Natalie Davis
Yepper. I don't trust him. For my own sake and, even more importantly, for the sakes of my children and the world, I can't.
24 - gonzo marx
so Matthew..you don't think it is a civil rights issue?
that's how it works out to me..you know, good old equal rights under the Law, the whole "pursuit of Happiness" thing...
last i checked, same sex folks were still human...
silly of me, i know..
Excelsior!
25 - Matthew T. Sussman
So ... if I think it should be up to the state, then I don't believe gays are human beings?
Does that mean if you think it should be up to Congress, then you are a homosexual yourself?