john roberts: still gay

priceless. after my original piece about John Roberts' homosexualismness, a few days ago i wrote:

"back in the reagan days, faggy-fag John Roberts "wrote a memo arguing that it was constitutionally acceptable for Congress to strip the Supreme Court of its ability to hear broad classes of civil rights cases." (link)
it seems he doesnt like 'minorities' - such as non-white folk, and women. he doesnt belong to either of those groups. the article doesnt mention whether he favors equal protection of gay guys. its not obvious whether he belongs to that group." (link)

LO:

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

and of course, it gets better:

"Roberts did not mention his work on the case in his 67-page response to a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire, released Tuesday. 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. Smith said the omission was probably just an oversight... he probably would have remembered it less"

'probably just an oversight'... probably like his 'forgetting' that he wasnt a member of the Federalist Society - maybe he just hasnt paid his dues... or maybe it more closely resembles Bolton's failure to remember being investigated...

this case is the "single most important positive ruling in the history of the gay rights movement" where Roberts argued "that the initiative violated the "equal protections" clause of the Constitution." - that sounds like the sort of thing you'd 'remember less' right?

or perhaps the amnesia was caused by

"the blistering dissent, (in which) Scalia, joined by Rehnquist and Thomas, said "Coloradans are entitled to be hostile toward homosexual conduct." Scalia added that the majority opinion had "no foundation in American constitutional law, and barely pretends to.""

Rehnquist, of course, was Roberts' former boss. perhaps Roberts forgot the blistering rebuke. its odd how that happens.

here's a description of the origins of the case:

"The lawyer who asked for Roberts' help on the case, Walter A. Smith Jr., then head of the pro bono department at Hogan & Hartson, said Roberts didn't hesitate. "He said, 'Let's do it.'"

Smith went on to say:

"And it's illustrative of his open-mindedness, his fair-mindedness. He did a brilliant job.""

The LATimes journo editorialised:

"Roberts' work on behalf of gay rights 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."

as i indicated above, he undermined the 14th amendment when it comes to non-whites and non-males - but all of a sudden thought it was a principle worth zealously protecting when it comes to non-straights. i wonder if his head would explode if he was asked to rule on a case that was specifically limited to black lesbians.

lets go back to the lede of the front page washington post article:

"(Roberts) advocat(ed) new legal theories... to *curtail* the use of courts to *remedy* racial and (gender) discrimination."

of course, its possible to argue that he was just "zealously represent(ing) the interests of the client, whoever it might be" - although that would probably be inconsistent with the notion that he was part of ""a band of ideological brothers" determined to make a lasting stamp on the nation" - yet, for some strange reason, he 'didnt hesitate' to be a 14th amendment lover when it came to gay rights. its funny how that happens.

there's another plausible explanation - again, heres the NY Daily News:

"Amid the political hullabaloo surrounding white-bread Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, gay activist Michelangelo Signorile remembers a much more colorful candidate.

"There was a contender for the federal judiciary in the George W. Bush administration who I began receiving information ... about him making sexual advances on men in gyms in Washington and other cities," Signorile told us Friday. Immediately after sex, "he would ... go into a religious tirade and then tell them how morally wrong all this was. His record was really conservative.""

Now, lets go back to a recent article in the LATimes by Jonathan Turley, law professor at George Washington University:

" Roberts was asked by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) what he would do if the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral. Roberts is a devout Catholic and is married to an ardent pro-life activist. The Catholic Church considers abortion to be a sin, and various church leaders have stated that government officials supporting abortion should be denied religious rites such as communion. (Pope Benedict XVI is often cited as holding this strict view of the merging of a person's faith and public duties).

Renowned for his unflappable style in oral argument, Roberts appeared nonplused and, according to sources in the meeting, answered after a long pause that he would probably have to recuse himself."

As i've said before, this arguably suggests that he puts his faith in the Flying Dead Guy above the constitution. some have suggested that its actually admirable that he'd recuse himself so as to avoid possible conflicts of interest - again, id argue that, as a SCOTUS judge, he must recognise/accept that the constitution is the highest law, and if he doesnt accept that, then he shouldnt have the job. even scalia the christo-quack recognizes that:

"The choice for a judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation, rather than simply ignoring duly enacted constitutional laws and sabotaging the death penalty."

i wouldnt normally quote this quackist - but to the extent that he is saying that, for a scotus judge, the constitution must be above any cultist doctrine, then i'll accept his general point.

on the other hand, roberts has said that "he would probably have to recuse himself" on any case which panzapope "considers immoral". as ive said before, if roberts were to strictly abide to that principle, id welcome him with open arms to the scotus, purely on pragmatic grounds. hell, i'd even fucking pray to the Flying Dead Guy if it meant that we had a split 4/4 decision on all issues involving 'morality' - stare decisis and all that.

of course, to the extent that the pattern i've outlined above is valid, then roberts will abstain from deliberating on gay rights (which would be *great*), but he'll find some pretzellian logic to be able to argue against womens reproductive rights, and against racial equality, and against environmental protection and all that. those things dont affect him directly. ie - my concern is that he'll pick and choose which issues are 'immoral' - thats better than we can expect from a complete judicial whore, but its disgusting to the extent that it is totally self-serving. i can imagine him arguing that roe is bad law, and busing is bad law and outlawing sodomy is bad law. fucking hypocrite. i can almost hear him whispering (with that stupid teary contorted expression permanently on his face) "ill follow the panzapope until it gets in the way of my lifestyle". it could be worse tho.

as i said in my original post:

"my preferred goal of course, is that the entire usg gets put on ice until the impeachment and we can start returning to some sense of normality. sandra day has promised to stay till a replacement is appointed - i hope she is there till the end of the bush presidency, whenever that is."

in my dreams, we can drag out the roberts confirmation for many months, and then we can get the stupid president impeached, and then we can return to a reality based world. and we'll all be sane again.

and then theres my *other* dream, where conyers is interrogating roberts in the confirmation process:
conyers: so, you didnt get married till you were 41?
gay roberts: nope
conyers: why is that?
gay roberts: umm - i didnt meet my wife till late
conyers: would you have got married earlier otherwise?
gay roberts: well, i had my career to think about
conyers: so, you arent really a family-values guy?
gay roberts: well, family is *really* important
conyers: but you dated people before you met your wife?
gay roberts: of course
conyers: were they all women?
gay roberts: errrrrr ummmmm
conyers: ok - i dont mean to pry
gay roberts: nah - its ok - im a cleanskin
conyers: ok - you've said that you would have to recuse yourself from issues that panzapope calls immoral
gay roberts: yeah - id hate my personal judgement to color my decisions
conyers: do you think its reasonable for us to ask what those cases my be?
gay roberts: well - its no secret what my cult believes
conyers: ok - so this commandment about not lying - u didnt say that you were a memeber of the Federalists, or anti-Federalists, or whatever they call themselves
gay roberts: 'forgetting' isnt a sin
conyers: no - did you wear a white dress at your wedding?
gay roberts: no - i wore a black suit
conyers: so you werent a virgin?
gay roberts: thats a personal question
conyers: true - but you'll be asked to decide cases about personal matters - and you've said that your faith is rilly rilly important and that panzapope is the final arbiter - so its fair game, right?
gay roberts: i wasnt a virgin
conyers: have you conceived any children?
gay roberts: of course not!
conyers: have you used contraceptives?
gay roberts: urrrr - no
conyers: have you used any contraceptive-program related devices?
gay roberts: like what?
conyers: have you ever used a condom?
gay roberts: errrr - yes
conyers: but you said you havent used contraceptives
gay roberts: condoms are dual-purpose
conyers: so you've used a condom, but not as a contraceptive?
gay roberts: well - sometimes women arent fertile, but condoms have other functions
conyers: so youve used condoms for non-contraceptive purposes?
gay roberts: yes
conyers: jebus hates that
gay roberts: i know - all those baby sperms going to waste
conyers: well - only if a woman is nearby
gay roberts: pardon???
conyers: well - if you were wanking in the car or something, they arent really potential life - just messy
gay roberts: phew - oh yeah - that.
conyers: have you ever used condoms for any other purpose?
gay roberts: what do u mean? like as a balloon?
conyers: well - other than catching diseases from women or so you dont spill cum messily?
gay roberts: errrr
conyers: you are under oath - and the whole country is watching
gay roberts: well - ermmmm - i'd prefer not to answer that
conyers: ok - i accept that. but you wouldnt go bareback?
gay roberts: like sullivan?
conyers: well - im just trying to understand - apparently scalia fucks his wife up the asss
gay roberts: ohhhh - you mean women! women? nah - never done that
conyers: its just that both the panzapope and the president dont like either aids or condoms or abortion - so im just trying to understand...
gay roberts: nah - why would i use a condom if i was ass-fucking my wife?
conyers: we havent been able to find any ex-girlfriends of yours
gay roberts: nah - you wont - she was my first - im a family man
conyers: so who did you have sex with before you were married?
gay roberts: oops - ive said too much.
conyers: would you like to continue the hearings? i think omnipotent god is watching... and the cspan god.
_____________

update - Kevin Drum and Digby join in