RW'ers are turning against Roberts

[ck4829]

“I don't know who makes me sicker – President Bush or the ‘conservatives’ who continue to back him and his sell-out choice for the U.S. Supreme Court,” writes WorldNetDaily’s Joseph Farah in response to a Los Angeles Times report that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts assisted gay rights advocates in preparing their case for Romer v. Evans. Farah restates his belief that Judge Roberts is a “blank slate” and, given news of his pro bono work on Romer, that Roberts “no longer sounds like the carefully crafted image of a jurist who believes in the Constitution and judicial restraint.” Farah declares Roberts “ought to be ashamed of himself as a self-proclaimed Catholic” and “ought to be denied a confirmation vote by the U.S. Senate.” Farah acquiesces: “I predict he will get every Republican vote and nearly all of the Democrat votes. Sad. Tragic. Pathetic.”

And

An equally extreme reaction came from Eugene Delgaudio, president of the anti-gay Public Advocate of the United States: “I was concerned and distressed to read the L.A. Times report that claims that Judge Roberts volunteered to give free legal advice to homosexual activists in Romer v. Evans, which overturned a democratic vote of the citizens of Colorado in an appalling act of judicial activism. We hope against hope that this report is false, and if it is, we call on Judge Roberts to correct the record immediately. If the report is true, and Judge Roberts did provide advice on how to overturn this pro- family measure overwhelmingly supported by the people of Colorado, then Public Advocate calls on President Bush to withdraw his nomination of Judge Roberts immediately.” Apparently President Bush did not move quickly enough to assuage Public Advocate’s fears, so PA has officially withdrawn its support for Roberts, as has the Conservative Caucus.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=17625

Also see Paul Weyrich say “Bill Frist is a good man whose love of science has clouded his moral vision”.

(BTW, I knew this would work. All we have to do is tell RW'ers that Roberts assisted gay rights advocates)

[BOSSHOG]

1. And Roberts doesn't "publicly" support blowing up

abortion clinics or sending homosexuals to ovens. How the hell can good christian conservatives in America support such a man.

[tanyev]

2. Awww, and I bet they cry when they don't get their dream date

when they play Mystery Date.

:nopity:

[PATRICK]

3. odd

What may have been largely a pose to disarm the left and make roberts appear balanced might have backfired when Dems actually played into the strategy- as they did with Gonzales.

Craziness for all parties but does it have any effect on actual votes?
Our weird times. the main thing that slips unnoticed is that the prime guarantee for Roberts for Bush MUST be(at least by intention) that he be a Bush tool first and a solid vote(not a Souter) second. That has nothing to do with filling an overt agenda but what difference since he must naturally fall into line more than O'Connor did- which was disastrous on more than one occasion.

The purity of the Right met with the Dems "no Bush judges" wrath that almost came to the surface at times would have been clear and refreshing and still have obscured what is really going on. Now it is a royal PR mess and Roberts will probably ooze in anyway.