Dems Wrong to Equate the Advocate with the Cause
It's been interesting to read the liberals' frenzied efforts to attribute the views John Roberts expressed as an advocate to him, personally (for example, see here -- PFAW's overwrought vaporings on "reproductive freedom").
And it's ironic, given these groups' claims to care for the oppressed, unpopular, marginalized and dispossessed. Because, after all, if every lawyer has to worry that the views he expresses on behalf of unpopular causes or clients are going to be attributed to him, it will make it much more difficult for the oppressed, unpopular, marginalized and dispossessed to find lawyers to represent them.
Surely the leftist groups wouldn't want to risk endangering the representation of those for whom they "care" so much -- all just to stop an honest and qualified judge with whom they disagree . . . Would they?
And it's ironic, given these groups' claims to care for the oppressed, unpopular, marginalized and dispossessed. Because, after all, if every lawyer has to worry that the views he expresses on behalf of unpopular causes or clients are going to be attributed to him, it will make it much more difficult for the oppressed, unpopular, marginalized and dispossessed to find lawyers to represent them.
Surely the leftist groups wouldn't want to risk endangering the representation of those for whom they "care" so much -- all just to stop an honest and qualified judge with whom they disagree . . . Would they?
posted by LadybugUSA at 10:30 AM
2 Comments:
Carol - John Roberts to many of us Democrats is personable, intelligent, witty, possessed of a terrific resume and extremely well versed in legalese....but...his drawback is that he simply is NOT INDPENDENT. He is beholden to this administration.
However, a lawyer who worked hard to obstruct justice for the Bush Camp in the Florida recount simply is not the man to seat on the Supreme court.
We need a Supreme who is not beholden to ANY administration, party or ideolgy. We need someone who is bold and brave enough to exercise independent judicial thought and not read from the scorecard of ANY party.
It's a little disheartening to hear members on the other side of the isle say they had NEVER blocked judges nominated by President Clinton. The former practice of BLUESLIPPING, which has since been discontinued, allowed blockage of many Clinton nominees; making sure they never even have their day before committees....and that is "blocking".
and I did forget to mention, John Roberts should be questioned for his involvement with the Iran/Contra affair.
According to Chapter 13 of Lawrence Walsh's "Final Report of the Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters," Iran-Contra heavy Carl R. Channell said Roberts was aware of White House approved illegal fundraising for the Contras of Nicaragua. Specifically, Channell says it was Roberts who put him into contact with Frank Gomez and Richard Miller for the purpose of raising money to support Contra activities.
And this goes to what restraints Roberts believes can be placed on the war making powers of the executive branch and/or to what extent he is willing to enforce those restraints...and laws.
Post a Comment
<< Home