Saturday, August 06, 2005

Touché!

On Beliefnet today, you will find your blogstress's rejoinder to the nasty bit of business published on that otherwise laudable site by William Donohue, president of the Catholic League.

Sphere: Related Content

The enigma

If the Roberts nomination finds itself in the teeniest bit of trouble, it's the righties and not the Democrats who pose the threat.

The news earlier this week, as reported by Richard Serrano of the Los Angeles Times, that Judge Roberts, then a private attorney, performed pro bono work for gay rights activists who challenged--and won before the Supreme Court--the statute championed by James Dobson that would have sanctioned all manner of discrimination against non-heterosexuals, has caused a bit of discomfort on the right.

At the Web site of the Agape Press, Bill Fancher interviews Paul Weyrich, who expresses his dismay:

The revelation that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts was instrumental in a homosexual rights ruling has stunned his supporters. The Romer v. Evans decision, which overturned a Colorado initiative that denied special rights to homosexuals, is considered among the most egregious examples of judicial activism ever. Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation, who says he is "troubled" by the revelation of Roberts' involvement in that case, recalls that the ruling was "a terrible one because it said that the people of Colorado would have had to be prejudiced against homosexuals in order to vote for that proposition -- [and] I think that is an outrage."

At World Net Daily, Art Moore reports that others on the right--notably, Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice--are sticking by their man. But in the West Wing, presidential aides are apparently a bit frenzied:

The White House also has been on the phone, immediately telephoning prominent leaders to reassure them after the Los Angeles Times story yesterday said Roberts helped represent "gay rights" activists as part of his law firm's pro bono work.

Of concern to all comers should be Roberts' failure to note, per Serrano's report, this particular bit of volunteer work on the papers he submitted to the Senate:

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.

As for your blogstress, she is perplexed. Now she doesn't know what to think about this guy. But she sure is glad he landed on the side of the angels on this one.

Sphere: Related Content