39E. ROBERTS AIDED SODOMITES

He's already said he'll uphold Roe vs. Wade as "the settled law of the land", and permit the slaughter of infants to continue. He's already shown he doesn't know America is a Republic. He's already shown that he endorsed dictatorial powers for the president. He's already taken the liberal side on welfare, the environment, private property, affirmative action, and prisoner's rights (howbeit he's also contradicted himself and taken the other side of some of those issues), the only thing left for him to take the liberal side on is sodomite rights.

Guess what? Yep, you got it on the first try! Not only did he defend the queers, he did it for FREE! And, the three conservative justices whom Roberts is most often compared to, Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist, all voted the other way. This again indicates that Roberts will vote with the frauds and liberals, like Souter.

Worst of all, that ruling forces PRIVATE HOMEOWNERS to be forced to rent their homes to queers and have queers work for them.

Who in the world could possibly mistake this guy for a "strict constitutionalist" or a "staunch conservative"? Are worshippers of Son Young Bush really that brainwashed?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/08/04/roberts_helped_gay_rights_activists_win_landmark_ruling/

Roberts helped gay-rights activists win landmark ruling

Court nominee had background role in decision

By Richard A. Serrano, Los Angeles Times August 4, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. worked behind the scenes for a coalition of gay-rights activists, and his legal expertise helped them persuade the Supreme Court to issue a landmark 1996 ruling protecting people against discrimination because of their sexual orientation.

Then a lawyer specializing in appellate work, the conservative Roberts helped represent the gay activists as part of his law firm's pro bono work. The coalition won its case, 6 to 3, in what gay activists described at the time as the movement's most important legal victory.

The three dissenting justices were those to whom Roberts is frequently likened for their conservative ideology -- Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Roberts's role working on behalf of gay activists, whose cause is anathema to many conservatives, appears to illustrate his allegiance to the credo of the legal profession: to zealously represent the interests of the client, whoever it might be.

The lawyer who asked for his help on the case, Walter A. Smith Jr., then-head of the pro bono department at Hogan & Hartson, said Roberts did not hesitate. "He said, 'Let's do it.' And it's illustrative of his open-mindedness, his fair-mindedness. He did a brilliant job," Smith said.

The committee asked for "specific instances" in which he had performed pro bono work, how he had fulfilled those responsibilities, and the amount of time he had devoted to them. Roberts did not mention his work on the gay-rights case in his 67-page response to a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire released Tuesday. (TG: Oops! He forgot!)

But Smith said yesterday that was probably just an oversight because Roberts was not the chief litigator in Romer v. Evans, which struck down a voter-approved 1992 Colorado initiative that would have allowed employers and landlords to exclude gays from jobs and housing.

Jean Dubofsky, lead attorney on the case and a former member of the Colorado Supreme Court, said she came to Washington to prepare for the Supreme Court presentation and immediately was referred to Roberts. "Everybody said Roberts was one of the people I should talk to,"

The case was argued before the Supreme Court in October 1995, and the ruling was handed down the following May. Activists across the country cheered the victory. Suzanne B. Goldberg, a staff attorney for Lambda, a legal services group for gays and lesbians based in New York, called it the "single most important positive ruling in the history of the gay-rights movement."

Thanks to MBD for finding this item.

39D. QUESTIONNAIRE ESPOSING ROBERTS AS WOLF

One of the most common excuses I've heard for people who want to close their eyes and pretend Judge John Roberts might be truly conservative is, "Well, we really won't know for sure his positions until he starts answering their questions and ruling on things. He may have said a few pro-choice type comments to appease the liberals, but when he's questioned and appointed, then we'll see where he stands NOW."

It's almost like they are hoping he lied to fool the liberals, but (wink, wink), he's really on our side - we hope.

NOPE. The first round of questioning came in, in the form of a 67 page questionnaire, and Roberts reiterated EXACTLY what I claimed in the first place. He is NOT a conservative at all. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and the clothing fits so badly I can't believe how intelligent people can't see the wolf underneath unless they were willingly ignorant.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/4801511/detail.html

Roberts Says He'll Respect Settled Law

Supreme Court nominee John Roberts is pledging to respect settled law if confirmed. Roberts said precedent is important in "promoting the stability of the legal system." The comments were part of a questionnaire Roberts filled out for the Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee released about 100 pages of his responses on Tuesday.

He even used the SAME TERM he used when he said earlier that Roe vs. Wade was the "SETTLED law of the land". Does he have to actually kill the babies himself before the Bush-bots will believe he's not conservative?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-02-roberts-wealth_x.htm

In the questionnaire, Roberts wrote, "A sound judicial philosophy should reflect recognition of the fact that the judge operates within a system of rules developed over the years by other judges."

IOW, he admittedly does support ruling from the bench and is not a "strict constitutionalist". No matter how many times Bush and his robots parrot the line that Roberts is a "strict constitutionalist", they are lying.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-02-roberts_x.htm

"They do not have a commission to solve society's problems, as they see them, but simply to decide cases before them according to the rule of law," Roberts stated.

Well, many of those decisions Roberts insists he'll respect as "settled law" were rendered to solve a supposed societal problem - Roe vs. Wade being the prominent example!

If both our "conservative Republican Christian" President, and his first Supreme Court judicial nominee say that they will do nothing to even attempt to quell abortion ("America is not ready", "It's not my job", or whatever excuse), who will? They are the LEADERS. If they won't turn the country toward righteousness, why should a Christian support them? What difference does it make if we have a "conservative Republican Christian" who does nothing to stop abortion, or a liberal Democrat feminist (Hillary?) who won't stop abortion (but at least agrees it's a tragic thing)?

42. LIBERAL ECO-WACKOS LAUD BUSH.

We already know that the historical temperature readings do NOT show global warming in the long run, and temperature changes are normal in the short run. No matter how many times the liberals make the same wild, irresponsible, unscientific claims, they are refuted by the same facts. There was more warming in the first 50 years of the 20th century than in the last 50, where fluorocarbons were in use. See http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_141.shtml and http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_464.shtml

Moreover, ozone holes simply mean there are no dangerous UV rays in the area. The *oxygen* breaks down the UV rays and the oxygen creates ozone in that process. That's why the alleged holes occur over the poles, which don't get much direct sunlight. More yet, an increase in CO2 (the "greenhouse effect") would be a good thing long before it was detrimental.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration admits that the Kyoto agenda would cost the U.S. $400 billion a year to possibly lower the temperature 0.07 degrees C, spread over the next 50 years (then the earth will probably spew a volcano to correct the fluctuation)! Yet, we're implementing much of it anyway.

The environmental panic scenarios (it was global cooling and a new ice age scare in the 1970's) are simply methods to frighten and control people. Yet the GOP is bragging on President Bush for taking the liberal position!

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2005/august/0803_global_warming.shtml

Group Applauds Bush, G8 on 'Global Warming'

By Monisha Bansal CNSNews.com Correspondent August 3, 2005

(CNSNews.com) -- He may be disdainful of the Kyoto global warming treaty, but President Bush is nevertheless a "force to be reckoned with" when it comes to plotting the best way to cut the production of greenhouse gases, according to conservative climate change experts assembled by a Washington, D.C. think tank on Tuesday.

Last month's meeting among the leaders of the world's industrialized democracies proved that point, said Roger Bate, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. "The G8 brought climate change discussions closer to current U.S. policy than European policy," Bate noted.

"The Bush administration already acknowledged as much about global warming in the past as the G8 did here," Marlo Lewis, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, added, pointing out the similarities between the president's policy briefing book from 2002 and the language in the Glenagles Communique on Climate Change, Energy and Sustainable Development, which the G8 leaders signed at their summit in Scotland in early July.

Lewis highlighted the following text of the Communique: "We know enough to act now to put ourselves on a path to slow, and as the science justifies, stop and reverse the growth of greenhouse gases." The text, he said, is almost identical to that of Bush's "Global Climate Change Policy Book," from February 2002.

8C. BUSH NAMES ANOTHER PRO-ABORT

http://www.covenantnews.com/blog/archives/014074.html

http://www.covenantnews.com/abortion/

http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=217&AMVIEWUSER=a3b2ba5f7638a6d5df2d16359f7238fe

Bush's New Education Secretary is Pro-Abortion, Not Worried About Decline Of Traditional American Family

The "Dallas Morning News" (9/2/01) once quoted self-described "earth-mother type of Republican" Margaret Spellings (then Margaret La Montagne) as having said: "I don't like to be in the limelight. I like to be under the radar." But, now the former Assistant To President Bush For Domestic Policy is in the limelight having been named Secretary Of Education.

So, what does Mrs. Spellings believe? Well, among other things, she's pro-abortion.

The interviewer, Joan Clayson, said she had spoken to President Bush "and he said to me it was unrealistic to change abortion policy in this country.

"The previously mentioned "Dallas Morning News" article says of Spellings and "her more liberal views" that columnist Robert Novak wrote this about her: "How much [she] is out of touch with Republican cultural values can be judged by her reaction, on C-SPAN last week, to census data showing a decline in the traditional family." About this data, she said: "So what?

"When asked about this reply by the "Dallas Morning News" reporter, she said: "I said, unfortunately, something like, 'So what?' We're here to develop policies for all American families, however they sort.

"In an interview on the "Cable News Network" (1/7/04), Spellings vigorously defended President Bush's guest-worker amnesty proposal which would allow millions of illegal aliens to stay in our country. Incredibly, she spoke of Mr. Bush's failure to enforce our immigration laws by saying that his amnesty scheme was needed because "we have to have laws and systems that reflect the reality of our country"!

Spellings was praised by Sen. Edward Kennedy who called her "a champion for public education." Spellings, also helped draft the "No Child Left Behind Act.

Another typical Bushite CON-servative RepubliCON.

39C. WHO'S FOR DICTATORSHIP?

On July 15th the Washington D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Bush administration view of presidential military authority.

That view is akin to the authority Stalin or Hitler held. The Bush administration believes that the president has the right to designate ANY individual as an "enemy combatant", and that person can be detained indefinitely with no right to appeal, representation, evidence, trial, or presumption of innocence. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez applauded the decision.

The document specifies that Congress cannot "place any limits on the President's determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used, or the method, timing, or nature of the response."

A December, 2001 ruling that goes along with this states that no federal court could "properly entertain appeals from enemy aliens held in detention."

By being tagged as "enemy combatants", they are not treated as prisoners of war or criminals (those groups have more rights). The President can literally name ANYBODY (including YOU) an "enemy combatant" and that individual has NO recourse whatsoever. That is nothing short of Gestapo-KGB-dictatorial power, exceeding anything Saddam Hussein ever perpetrated.

As dangerous as such power is in the hands of a supposed conservative, Republican Christian, can you imagine that power in the hands of future President Hillary when she wants to eradicate "homophobes", anti-abortion zealots, those home schoolers who are in such rebellion to the gov't, or other members of the "vast right-wing conspiracy"? In fact, Hillary's husband Bill was the one who originated this presidential war-power plan that George Bush currently enjoys enforcing.

Actually, it's not a matter of "when" some ambitious president will use this power to detain a foreigner or an American. It has already been done. Of course most of the people violated are "bad guys" like American citizen Jose Padilla. That way the public isn't so alarmed. But if they are truly such bad guys, they surely would be duly convicted in a legal trial.

But they are not all so repugnant. Canadian citizen Mahar Arar's experience proved that. He was detained under these regulations with no charges filed. He was not allowed to face his accusers not was he presented with any evidence. He was sent to Syria where he was tortured with rods and cables. He was forced to sign a bogus confession and then freed without ever being charged with anything by anybody.

Shipping these alleged "enemy combatants" to foreign countries that use heinous methods of torture is becoming common. Besides Syria, we've sent some to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Uzbekistan (along with sending their Karimov regime $500 billion for "security matters"), where they torture by boiling body parts, among other gruesome methods. Our President can order torture of the detainees as he (or she) sees fit, and the interrogators enjoy immunity from persecution.

Certainly no conservative could support such atrocities. The Washington D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals must be made up of typical liberal judicial activists trying to legislate from the bench and force their socialist bent on America.

Oh, did I mention that one of the judges on the Washington D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals who endorsed these dictatorial presidential powers was JOHN ROBERTS?

(Information from http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_1903.shtml)