Do They Really Think We Care?
The rhetoric in the Roberts fight continues to boil. The LA Times has a piece today regarding gay and lesbian groups coming out against him. This is a surprise, as just little over a couple weeks ago, it was revealed that Roberts worked on a case—Romer v. Evans—that had Christian conservatives up in arms. It was pro bono case he helped on while in private practice.
WASHINGTON — Despite John G. Roberts Jr.'s legal help in a landmark Supreme Court victory for gay rights, four leading gay rights organizations said Thursday that they had decided to oppose his nomination to the high court.
The four groups — the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays — argued that the bulk of Roberts' record suggested he would be unsympathetic to gay rights cases.
"His writings as a lawyer, his rulings as a judge and his statements as a policymaker all lead us to the unfortunate conclusion that Judge Roberts would not vote to protect our civil rights from those who are, at this moment, fighting so hard to take them away," the groups said in a joint statement.
That last paragraph is telling. It is telling me these people have next to no clue what they are talking about. Roberts was not a policymaker. He never served in any legislative body, therefore he did not make policy. As a lawyer, the man argued on behalf of the White House, and the president residing within it. Second, what civil rights are they referring to? To my knowledge gays and lesbians do not have civil rights that protect them. And honestly, they do not need them. We cannot discriminate based on race, color, creed, religion, or age. Sexual identity does not figure in.
It cannot. Most of the sexual identity questions revolve around a choice. Granted, the same argument can be made for religion, except that our religious freedom is already guaranteed under the First Amendment. We have the freedom to choose to do a number of things in this nation, and many of them are protected. Many are not. I can protest, but during that protest I cannot assault someone. One action is protected. The other is not.
In their joint statement, the gay rights groups opposing Roberts' nomination said his record indicated he "would vote to roll back the constitutional protections upon which our community — and all Americans — rely.
"The groups said that the released files covering Roberts' prior government service suggested he was skeptical of the legal rationales that underlie most court rulings cherished by the gay community: the right to privacy and equal protection under the law.
"Ultimately, this is about an individual's right to privacy," Solmonese said. "From women's rights to religious freedom to civil rights, there is powerful evidence that Judge Roberts would rule against equality."
Roberts would rule against equality? Somehow I do not see that. This past weekend, Thomas and I participated in a symposium put on by Hugh Hewitt. Bloggers vetted the information released to the judiciary committee. We took up the most of the boxes regarding his stance on recess appointments. But just because we did that does not mean that we did not pay attention to the other eighty-seven bloggers that participated.
The topics were wide-ranging, and on the subject of equal protection, Roberts comes down firmly on the side of protecting those rights. But those rights must be enumerated, whether in the Constitution or in enacted law. If they are not, a judge cannot rule on them. Similarly, a judge cannot simply create it out of thin air. I know they do, and it is a travesty every time it occurs.
And they do have equal protecting under the laws. As I stated above, they cannot be discriminated against under the laws now, except with their sexual identity. However, citing the case Roberts worked on—Romer v. Evans—he did more for their cause than anyone else. The Supreme Court, by a vote of six to three, struck down the Colorado initiative that would have allowed employers and landlords to forbid gays and lesbians jobs and housing.
I fail to see the logic in their arguments. In the typical fashion of the Left, they have drawn their argument from the rhetoric of emotion, rather than common-sense. They poo-poo his record, and take up the talking points of Ralph Neas. Neas and his cohorts are wrong, and so are these gay and lesbian groups. No, Judge Roberts will not bend over backwards and give them new "rights," but he protect those on the books right now.
The Bunny ;)
The rhetoric in the Roberts fight continues to boil. The LA Times has a piece today regarding gay and lesbian groups coming out against him. This is a surprise, as just little over a couple weeks ago, it was revealed that Roberts worked on a case—Romer v. Evans—that had Christian conservatives up in arms. It was pro bono case he helped on while in private practice.
WASHINGTON — Despite John G. Roberts Jr.'s legal help in a landmark Supreme Court victory for gay rights, four leading gay rights organizations said Thursday that they had decided to oppose his nomination to the high court.
The four groups — the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays — argued that the bulk of Roberts' record suggested he would be unsympathetic to gay rights cases.
"His writings as a lawyer, his rulings as a judge and his statements as a policymaker all lead us to the unfortunate conclusion that Judge Roberts would not vote to protect our civil rights from those who are, at this moment, fighting so hard to take them away," the groups said in a joint statement.
That last paragraph is telling. It is telling me these people have next to no clue what they are talking about. Roberts was not a policymaker. He never served in any legislative body, therefore he did not make policy. As a lawyer, the man argued on behalf of the White House, and the president residing within it. Second, what civil rights are they referring to? To my knowledge gays and lesbians do not have civil rights that protect them. And honestly, they do not need them. We cannot discriminate based on race, color, creed, religion, or age. Sexual identity does not figure in.
It cannot. Most of the sexual identity questions revolve around a choice. Granted, the same argument can be made for religion, except that our religious freedom is already guaranteed under the First Amendment. We have the freedom to choose to do a number of things in this nation, and many of them are protected. Many are not. I can protest, but during that protest I cannot assault someone. One action is protected. The other is not.
In their joint statement, the gay rights groups opposing Roberts' nomination said his record indicated he "would vote to roll back the constitutional protections upon which our community — and all Americans — rely.
"The groups said that the released files covering Roberts' prior government service suggested he was skeptical of the legal rationales that underlie most court rulings cherished by the gay community: the right to privacy and equal protection under the law.
"Ultimately, this is about an individual's right to privacy," Solmonese said. "From women's rights to religious freedom to civil rights, there is powerful evidence that Judge Roberts would rule against equality."
Roberts would rule against equality? Somehow I do not see that. This past weekend, Thomas and I participated in a symposium put on by Hugh Hewitt. Bloggers vetted the information released to the judiciary committee. We took up the most of the boxes regarding his stance on recess appointments. But just because we did that does not mean that we did not pay attention to the other eighty-seven bloggers that participated.
The topics were wide-ranging, and on the subject of equal protection, Roberts comes down firmly on the side of protecting those rights. But those rights must be enumerated, whether in the Constitution or in enacted law. If they are not, a judge cannot rule on them. Similarly, a judge cannot simply create it out of thin air. I know they do, and it is a travesty every time it occurs.
And they do have equal protecting under the laws. As I stated above, they cannot be discriminated against under the laws now, except with their sexual identity. However, citing the case Roberts worked on—Romer v. Evans—he did more for their cause than anyone else. The Supreme Court, by a vote of six to three, struck down the Colorado initiative that would have allowed employers and landlords to forbid gays and lesbians jobs and housing.
I fail to see the logic in their arguments. In the typical fashion of the Left, they have drawn their argument from the rhetoric of emotion, rather than common-sense. They poo-poo his record, and take up the talking points of Ralph Neas. Neas and his cohorts are wrong, and so are these gay and lesbian groups. No, Judge Roberts will not bend over backwards and give them new "rights," but he protect those on the books right now.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 11:34 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home