Wayne Besen - Author, Activist, Columnist, Public Speaker

Friday, July 22, 2005

Is John Roberts A Stealth Right Wing Conservative?

In today's New York Times, a highly disturbing article showed that rabid neo-puritans were endorsing U.S. Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts. Throughout the article there were an avalanche of disturbing winks and nods that would give even the most fair minded person pause. Is Roberts a hard core ideologue in moderate's clothing? After reading the Times artice I'm a little wary that he is a stealth candidate on the far right fringe. According to the Times:

Two well-connected Christian conservative lawyers - Leonard Leo, chairman of Catholic outreach for the Republican Party, and Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of an evangelical Protestant legal center founded by Pat Robertson - gradually won over most social conservatives to nearly unanimous support, even convincing them that the lack of a paper trail was an asset that made Judge Roberts harder to attack.

Both had been tapped by the White House to build the coalition for judicial confirmation battles.

Mr. Leo said that "there were certainly questions a year or two ago about whether John Roberts fit the president's standards as he set forth in his two campaigns" - a jurist in the mold of Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas - "but as we moved closer and closer to the period when a vacancy would occur people became much more educated and more comfortable with his background."

To make matters worse, Focus on the Family's James Dobson seems to think that Roberts will be his man.

"I think that we do know a lot about Judge Roberts, from his life, from his record, from the things he has stood for," Dr. Dobson said. "We believe the issues we care about will be handled carefully by this judge."

I don't know about you, but when a theocrat like James Dobson is pleased, I begin to feel a bit queasy. With such stealthy, underhanded endorsements, it is more important than ever for Senators to do their jobs and ask tough questions during confirmation proceedings. Make no mistake, gay rights and the right to choose hang in the balance.

6 Comments:

It is clear that this clown is another Scalia. He must be opposed before we are stuck with another nut like Scalia or another low IQ buffoon like Thomas for the next 25 years.

Phil in Baltimore, MD
posted by Anonymous, at 7/22/2005 1:27 PM

I think we need to relax and learn more before we make rash decsions. What were you expecting anyway, Mario Quwomo or Teddy Kennedy to be nominated. Let's give this guy a chance.

Lance
Houston
posted by Anonymous, at 7/22/2005 1:29 PM

Randi Rhodes on Air America Radio had an interesting comment yesterday; something I never thought of. I dont know if she is correct, but she said the right will never really overturn Roe because it's too much of money raising issue for both the republicans and the evangelical churches alike. Yes I'm sure they would be that cynical!
Even if that's true, we'll have to avoid sending any cases pertaining to gay rights to the supreme court until the sane Progressives are back in power, whenever that may be. The real losers will be the environment and the working class, who can kiss any type of protection from corporate abuse goodbye (many of whom were foolish enough to vote for this party in the first place).
I also heard that a recent study has found that due to environmental contaminants, many fetuses in this country are developing in a virtual stew of about 126 chemicals that should not be there, including pesticides and mercury. Granted, these are ONLY trace amounts, but this may account for the rather dramatic rise in autism rates in this country over the past few decades, including my cousin's son. But of course our 'culture of life' president continues to gut the environmental protection laws and his christbot followers are clueless as usual!
Gary (NJ)
posted by Anonymous, at 7/22/2005 2:59 PM

I think that taking chances with this nominee, is literal suicide for Civil rights.
posted by Anonymous, at 7/22/2005 3:27 PM

In 1935, the Nazi Government said homosexuals should die and we did.

In 1969, the New York City Government raided a gay bar in New York and we said, "Not this time."

In 1986, the US Supreme Court (including Sandra Day O'Connor) said gays and lesbians do not have the right to privacy and we said, "Try the case again".

In 1993, the US Government said "Don't ask, don't tell". Its time that law changed.

In 1996, the State of Colorado said they can take away our rights. The Supreme Court said no.

In 2003, the Supreme Court of the State of Massachusetts said you can get married in Massachusetts and we did.

In 2003, the Supreme Court (Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Souter, Stephens) said we could have private, non-profit, adult, sexual activity between consenting adults and we said "We never stopped having sex."

In 2005 ...(you fill in the blank)
posted by Anonymous, at 7/25/2005 5:14 PM

I feel truly sorry that folks on here feel that christians and conservatives are the enemy. It just goes to show you that liberal talk is much more effective than actual actions. Historically all the legislative rights that make people equal in this country have come from conservatives, and have been fought against by liberals. I know this isent the spin you hear, but it is verifiable for anyone who wished to actually look up the facts and get the truth. You see when minority struggle of any kind (Sex, Race) ends Libs don't have a job, so they devide, and classify. All the conservatives and christians I know tolerate everyone, and treat people based on the way they wish to be treated themselves. I'm not saying there aren't exceptions, but there are phanatics in every walk of life.
posted by Anonymous, at 6/14/2007 4:26 PM