[COMMENT: This kind of news (see below) keeps creeping into view. I hope the news below is wrong, but I fear it is right, and that the Bush administration has been captured by neo-cons who are socialists in Republican dress. I do not think that the references to Roberts' words can be contradicted. How can Bush approve a man who has said such things? And how can Christians do so?
(See http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin249.htm and also, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/05/politics/politicsspecial1/05roberts.html?th&emc=th .)
It greatly disturbs me that I am forced to choose between believing Bush, who seems to be an honest and praying Christian, to be either deceitful or terribly naive and ignorant of political reality. I began hoping that Bush would be an improvement over Clinton. Morally he certainly is. But he continues to socialize our society, rather than limit government to its rightful tasks. And he has not stood up for the babies in the womb as he could. Because he is a Republican and a Christian, it seems that he can get away with things that even Clinton could not. I remain very cautiously hopeful that the Iraq war will turn out rightly. But that is still very much wavering in the balance.
Perhaps Roberts is a stealth conservative, tinkering in pseudo-liberal ventures so as to get their votes in a nomination contest. If so, I still would not trust a man who cannot stand up and proclaim truth openly and boldly.
Worst of all, it bodes very ill for America that Christians are almost incapable of publicly defending a Biblical account of civil government. On the good side, there are growing signs of Christians beginning to recover their intellectual integrity -- which will greatly strengthen our spiritual backbones. E. Fox]
Thursday, September 8, 2005
Posted: September 8, 2005 1:00 a.m. Eastern © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
Now that President Bush has nominated John Roberts to be chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, replacing the late William Rehnquist, the man's record and what it suggests about his future becomes all the more important.
Had he been just a replacement for Sandra Day O'Connor's seat on the court, the damage Roberts could do would be minimal. He appears to be cut from the same cloth as O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter – Republican nominees who voted with the majority of the court with little or no concern as to the strict meaning of the Constitution.
But, now, with Roberts likely to replace Rehnquist, he is in a position actually to weaken the composition of the court – to change its direction for the worse.
Roberts is an establishment guy all the way.
"Conservatives" have made a fundamental miscalculation supporting his
nomination. By doing so, they are giving President Bush carte blanche to name
yet another like him to replace O'Connor – taking a court known for its
wrongly decided 6-3 and 5-4 rulings of the recent past toward a court likely
to make wrongly decided 7-2 and 6-3 rulings in the future.
Republicans and conservatives are making decisions about Roberts based on reactions to him by people who would oppose any nomination by a Republican president. They are not looking at the man and his record and making a cold, objective decision for themselves.
We all know about Roberts' role in preparing one of the biggest landmark cases for homosexual activists – the 1996 Romer v. Evans ruling. His pro bono participation in that case should be more than enough to disqualify him in the eyes of true conservatives. Yet many continue to work on his behalf enthusiastically.
Less well-known was the role Roberts played in subverting the will of perhaps the greatest president of the 20th century – Ronald Reagan.
Memos drafted by Roberts during his tenure in Reagan's Justice Department show a distinct hostility to the conservative ideals embraced by his boss and to some of the individuals who championed those ideals.
Take, for instance, a Dec. 14, 1981, memo, obtained by the Washington Times, and written to his colleague, Kenneth Starr, another country-club Republican, who would later bamboozle President Reagan into nominating Sandra Day O'Connor as a Supreme Court justice.
The topic was a book called, "A Blueprint for Judicial Reform," produced by Paul Weyrich's Free Congress Foundation. The American Bar Association, no friend of the Reagan administration, was quizzing new Attorney General William French Smith about the ideas in the book.
Roberts let his hair down and revealed just what kind of a snake he truly is in this memo he probably thought would remain forever a private communication.
"I suggest we keep as low a profile on this as possible," he wrote to his co-conspirator Starr. "Weyerich [sic] is of course no friend of ours, but it won't help to stir up the influential contributors to this volume, and any comment by the AG will simply highlight the fact that we have yet to take a position" on some of the issues raised by the book.
That statement shows Roberts is not a conservative. He is an anti-conservative.
Now, I don't consider myself a conservative, but I do consider myself a friend to many conservatives. And my advice to those friends is to recognize right now that John Roberts is the enemy. One of my beefs with conservatives is they never seem to see it coming. They didn't recognize what Ken Starr was and is. And they still don't see the handwriting on the wall with John Roberts.
Roberts was an insider then defending the indefensible policies of the
permanent bureaucracy of the Justice Department that was out to thwart Reagan
Let me be crystal clear about the kind of man Roberts is based on the evidence before us: He's a backroom "fixer." He's a Beltway establishment figure who will never challenge the mental illness known as "political correctness" that pervades Washington.
I know there is little chance of denying him the job of chief justice. But if conservatives would at least acknowledge how bad this nomination is, they might get a slightly better nominee for the other open seat.
Am I optimistic about that possibility? No. To me, it appears
conservatives have become their own worst enemy.
Joseph Farah is founder, editor and chief executive officer of WND .
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Go to =>: TOP Page; Politics; Constitution; ROAD MAP