Today is
Monday, September 25, 2017

Google Safe Search


Home > Perspective

Sick of Muckraking; Evaluating Judge Roberts


I picked a lousy time to go to the Dells.  Yes, I spent Monday through yesterday at the Wisconsin Dells, mostly swimming in one of the finest waterparks on Earth.  Since the Wilderness Resort and Lodge did not pay for advertising here, I will not mention that we enjoyed their fine facility, and a great time was had by adults and kiddies alike.  While I was gone, Judge John Roberts has apparently been "outed" by the Los Angeles Times as a behind-the-scenes advocate to strike down the Colorado ballot initative that attempted to prevent gay people from claiming their sexual preference as a minority preference.  Rush correctly opined that this is a ribald attempt to drive a wedge between conservative supporters of Judge Robertsí Supreme Court nomination.


"The press seeks to rake up any muck they can on Judge Roberts, and the fact that they are also trying to split the conservatives with this ígay rightsí issue shows that they fear our unity."


Simultaneously the other Times, the New York Times, has been "investigating" Judge Robertsí children, specifically the circumstances surrounding their adoption.  The press seeks to rake up any muck they can on Judge Roberts, and the fact that they are also trying to split the conservatives with this "gay rights" issue shows that they fear our unity.  Judge Roberts is a solid conservative, and they are terrified that the regressive agenda of political correctness and nanny-state extremism will no longer be implemented by judicial fiat.  Most conservative leaders know this well, hence, Judge Roberts enjoys our nearly-complete unity in supporting his elevation to the Supreme Court.

So why does Los Angeles Times run a story that appears to be designed to endear this man to liberals?  Rush was correct when he presumed this to be an attempt to drive the wedge between Roberts and the conservative base.  The Colorado ballot initiative was designed to amend the law, presumably to prevent things like devout born-again Christians being forced to rent properties they own to gay couples.  However, a reasonable look at the law could lead one to believe that it went too far.  Now I know that Justices Thomas and Scalia both vehemently disagree with that position.  Taken in total, I side with the honorable justices.


"The mere fact that Judge Roberts offered pro bono work to oppose the Colorado initiative, is considered a potential wedge issue screams that there is a problem here.  The problem is, as Rush again correctly notes, that the left thinks that conservatives hate gay people.  That is total rubbish."


The mere fact that Judge Roberts offered pro bono work to oppose the Colorado initiative, is considered a potential wedge issue screams that there is a problem here.  The problem is, as Rush again correctly notes, that the left thinks that conservatives hate gay people.  That is total rubbish.  Some of us think that homosexual conduct is sinful, but let me make it clear:  Gay people are people too.  They are Americans with equal civil rights, they are just as much people as any non-gay people.  That is why, last year, Conservativity set forth its position about gay people in the military, namely, that "donít ask donít tell" be replaced with "Donít care."

Now, Rush made a point with which I will disagree, most respectfully: "We donít accord civil rights to behavior. Race and religion are not the same as sex when it comes to bestowing civil rights."  I have to disagree.  Free Speech, even against the government, is a behavior, and it is a protected civil right.  Bearing arms is a behavior, and it is a protected civil right.  Refusing to testify against oneself is a behavior and it is a protected civil right.  Refusing to admit police officers to your house without their first getting a search or arrest warrant is a behavior, and is a protected civil right.  Free Exercise of religion is a behavior and it is a protected civil right.  Barring soldiers from being quartered in our homes in peacetime is a behavior and it is a protected civil right.


"Civil rights are our guarantees that we can behave in certain ways without fear of reprisal by the government or other citizens.  In the Colorado initiative, the people were trying to keep gay people from forcing those who disapprove of their lifestyles to rent their property to these people."


Civil rights are our guarantees that we can behave in certain ways without fear of reprisal by the government or other citizens.  In the Colorado initiative, the people were trying to keep gay people from forcing those who disapprove of their lifestyles to rent their property to these people.  I agree with that.  Quiet enjoyment of your property is another behavior that is your civil right.  Something else must be noted:

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
U.S. Constitution, Amendments 9 and 10.

The Ninth Amendment is the most important component of our personal freedoms.  It basically says that the people have all the rights and the government has no right to prohibit people from doing what they please, except of course, to commit crimes.  The tenth amendment keeps the Federal Government from usurping the power of the states.  Justices Thomas and Scalia rely upon the tenth amendment to state that a Federal judge has no power to overturn the ballot initiative.

Amendment XIV:  Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
U.S. Constitution, Amendment 14.

Judge Roberts certainly has read this, specifically the part that will not let any state "make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."  If one reads the Ninth Amendment as allowing gay people to be gay, and that is to me a correct interpretation, then Colorado could be seen as trying to codify anti-gay discrimination into the law.  That would be a violation of the 14th Amendment.  This is a legally reasonable stance, and an attorney who is advocating a position has no right to refuse on ideological grounds to take a position in litigation.


"Judge Roberts was an attorney in a law firm.  He was assigned to work on this case.  He did it pro bono according to the rules of the firm."


Judge Roberts was an attorney in a law firm.  He was assigned to work on this case.  He did it pro bono according to the rules of the firm.  Most law firms have pro bono policies to make sure that those who need representation but lack money have a shot at quality attorneys.  Judge Roberts may have aggressively represented his client, while holding his nose the entire time.  Itís not that uncommon.  You want an attorney who has the integrity to represent his client properly, even if he or she hates his or her position, or lifestyle or ideology.

The muck raking about the adoption of Judge Robertsí children is based on the idea that the children, adopted form Latin America are too light skinned!  Am I wrong to be completely offended at this evil garbage?  These kids were saved from orphansí lives, or even from being murdered in an abortion.  The liberals know that the Supreme Court is now the final arbiter of social issues, as Rush correctly notes over and over and over and over.  If the Court turns conservative, the left loses their last way to force the people to swallow their garbage.  So even private, sealed records should, in their warped world view, be turned over, to enable them to try to falsely label a good man and his wife as evil -- for choosing to love orphans and opening their loving arms to those orphans!  The reporters at the New York Times and the L.A. Times apparently have no decency.