August 06, 2005
Announcing: Conservative Bloggers Who Support The Gay Judge Roberts
Sometimes, enough is enough. The time has come for us to take action.
It has long been axiomatic for the Left that conservatives hate gays. It should be obvious that no political party can remain viable unless it is accommodates a wide spectrum of beliefs. The Republican Party is no exception: it is home to a variety of broadly conservative, but diverse viewpoints. Yet somehow, this basic truth is overshadowed by the fact that some (though by no means all of us) have religious objections to the practice of homosexuality. This is not the same as hating homosexuals.
Within our party, there are a wide variety of opinions on gay marriage. Some strongly favor civil unions. Some think gay marriage is fine, but want to leave it up to the states to decide. And some believe that marriage has a special meaning - that it was meant for a man and a woman for the procreation of children. And so they vehemently oppose gay marriage. You may agree, or disagree. America, last time we checked, is still a free country. But again, free debate is not hate speech.
The fuss over the nomination of Judge Roberts began over abortion. When the Left found no traction there, the debate quickly segued to toads, french fries, and matters of such profound Constitutional import as the nominee's ability to spell the word "Havana".
His family's sartorial excesses were mined for deeper socio-political meaning by experts like Robyn Givhans. What could little Jack's retro look tell us about how the nominee would rule? Inquiring minds wanted to know.
These tactics having failed to yield the requisite degree of entertainment value, things started to get silly. The NY Times started combing through the nominee's adoption records. One wonders what they hoped to find? Some personal dirt from a background investigation? Or perhaps some technical or legal impropriety that would overturn the adoption and leave two young children homeless? Who would be served by such a disgusting tactic, one wonders? In any event, they found nothing.
It seems nothing the candidate does will satisfy the Left. Against all evidence to the contrary, Roberts is relentlessly portrayed by those who should know better as a ruthless, Reich-wing extremist. Even the revelation that he worked pro bono in support of gay rights earns him no credit with the opposition.
We're sure Hotline didn't mean anything by it, but we know the first thing that came to mind this morning upon reading these two items in a row:
• SCOTUS nominee John Roberts "conceded" he should have said he was registered to lobby on behalf of the cosmetics industry in the questionnaire he submitted to the Senate (Newsday).
• "Roberts Donated Help to Gay Rights Case" (Los Angeles Times).
That's right: Clearly, Judge Roberts is a somewhat crooked but basically nice guy who maybe tries to even the karmic balance by helping out worthy causes.
Also, he is gay.
Confidential to M.D.: Just because you found the one bad picture of the guy doesn't mean he's not pretty.
Well helk. The half-vast editorial staff thinks John Roberts is pretty, too. And though we rather doubt he is gay, if he is, that's just fine with us. Frankly, we don't give a damn.
He'll be in good company. After all, there's some pretty underwhelming evidence from the Left that W is gay, but durnitall, we voted for him anyway:
While Tony Blair may have mastered the Queen's English, our President's vocabulary calls to mind any number of queens' English. Even our least vigilant Republican social commandos have noticed that Mr. Bush has been peppering his otherwise delightful litany of patriotic jingoism and pleasantly embroidered CIA-intelligence recaps with the effeminate mating call "fabulous" -- three giddy syllables that are tantamount to coyly cooing, "Hello, sailor!"
"And we'll prevail, because we're a faaabulous nation, and we're a faaabulous nation because we're a nation full of faaabulous people."
-- George W. Bush., Atlanta, GA, January 31, 2002
Even ShrubDaddy has triggered the Left's ever-vigilant gaydar:
Is George W. Bush the first gay president?
Evidence of Bush's non-heterosexual proclivities keeps surfacing. Kitty Kelley's Bush Family expose' "The Family" (2004) had noted George W. Bush's homosexual relationsip with Victor Ashe, the Mayor of Knoxvillle, Tennessee.
George W. Bush, who was the head cheerlader at all-male Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts, as well as cheerleader at all-male Yale University has been quoted as saying, "I want to thank my old college classmate (you used to call him Bulldog, we call him Victor) the Mayor of Knoxville Victor Ashe," at the Van Hilleary for Governor Luncheon, Knoxville, Tennessee, Oct.
"Cheerleader", "all-male", "my old college classmate"... heh. What more conclusive proof could any objective observer require? Homosexuality obviously runs in the Bush family. Heck - it's just rampant in the
White Pink House. After all, look at Jeff Gannon and Ken Mehlman. DNC activists have their hands full yanking all the "hidden homos" in the Bush administration out of the closet. So far, only one male member of the Bush family seems to have escaped scrutiny".
And frankly, we're not taking bets on his chances.
In the end, this debate should not be about whether the nominee wore plaid in high school, or whether he wrestled, or hung around with too many other boys, or whether Wonkette thinks his face is pretty. There are more substantive issues to chew on.
If anyone is still interested in the issues, this piece give a rather nice view of the nominee's admirably-restrained approach to the law:
During the hearing, Roberts laid out his reasons for what might be called nominee restraint. A nominee who offered personal views of the Court's precedents in the confirmation process would undermine the independence and integrity of the judiciary, he said. Those important qualities are ensured by the assumption that "judges come to the cases before them unencumbered by prior commitments beyond the commitment to apply the rule of law and the oath that they take."
When Schumer asked how it was any different--was there not also harm done to the judiciary?--when litigants go before the Supreme Court knowing that some justices have opined in previous cases in such a way as to indicate opposition to their arguments, Roberts said that it was different, precisely because the confirmation process is not the judicial process. "The concern is that you are giving commitments, forecasts, hints, even at the extreme, bargains, for confirmation," whereas, in the judicial process, "you are deciding a particular case and stating your reasons for it." If a nominee gave in effect "a prior commitment" as to how a case should be decided, that would be wrong, Roberts said, and it would "have a distorted effect on how that judge will appear to parties appearing before him." Roberts was firm in drawing this line, and Schumer concluded by conceding how good a lawyer he is--"far better than I would ever be."
In his confirmation hearing, Roberts did offer some views, not about decided cases, but about judicial philosophy. Because he was nominated to a lower court, he emphasized his obligation to follow Supreme Court precedents. But he also seemed to endorse a way of approaching the task of interpreting the Constitution. "I do not think beginning with an all-encompassing approach to constitutional interpretation is the best way to faithfully construe the document," he said. He said that the Court itself didn't have such a philosophy, but he also seemed to think that the Court was right not to have one. He said he didn't feel comfortable with labels like originalist, textualist, or literalist, and he said different constitutional provisions call for different interpretative approaches. "You have a very different approach in saying how you are going to give content to the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. That's one thing. It doesn't mean that you apply the same approach to a far more specific provision like the Seventh Amendment," which preserves the right of trial by jury in suits at common law.
Read the whole thing.
Because in the end, this isn't about who is gay, or who is not. It's about reading the Constitution fairly. And Judge Roberts, from everything I can see, approaches that task with a thoughtful and restrained approached that, in the end, returns maximum power to the legislatures of this great nation.
And that should be heartening to those on both sides of the political aisle, for it means that all they then need to do is roll up their sleeves and persuade the people of their case.
Now can we talk about something else?
You can join us at the Conservative Bloggers Who Support The Gay Judge Roberts website
Thanks for the faaaaaabulous logo art to spd rdr at Heigh Ho
Cross-posted (which is even more fun than cross-dressing) at CBWSTGJR.
Update: Got the nicest email from Ana Marie Cox. She has announced her support of our little initiative... especially, she says, if he *is* gay.
Mind you, she's not a conservative (nor does she need to agree with us - we don't even agree with each other half the time!), and she doesn't necessarily support his judicial philosophy. But she has a great sense of humor - she took this whole thing exactly in the spirit in which it was intended.
Now why can't more people on Capitol Hill be that way?
Posted by Cassandra at August 6, 2005 06:27 AM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Announcing: Conservative Bloggers Who Support The Gay Judge Roberts:
» Catching up from Darleen's Place
I went back to work yesterday, feeling much better -- until I got a look at my desk. Stood looking in stunned silence as the profanity rolled through my brain. Then I got home last night to find I was... [Read More]
Tracked on August 6, 2005 01:55 PM
» Villainous, indeed! from MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Cassandra is, in a word, brilliant! Care to join some villainous company? Conservative Bloggers Who Support The Gay Judge Roberts [Wonkette??? HA!] ... [Read More]
Tracked on August 6, 2005 02:29 PM
Tracked on August 6, 2005 03:10 PM
» Around the web from She Who Will Be Obeyed!
Got up early this morning, and thought I'd check out some good blogs. Here are some you should definitely read - Nykola has her monthly rant up - how men should *not* behave if they want to get a date.... [Read More]
Tracked on August 7, 2005 08:37 AM
» http://www.itsapundit.com/2005/08/supporting_gay_.html from It'sAPundit.com
Supporting gay Judge Roberts? That is the message that Cassandra is putting forth It has long been axiomatic for the Left that conservatives hate gays. It should be obvious that no political party can remain viable unless it is accommodates [Read More]
Tracked on August 7, 2005 09:52 AM
» Roberts Should Boycott The Hearings from Don Surber
UPDATE: Meanwhile Villainous Company has set up a Conservative Bloggers Who Support The Gay Judge Roberts Web site. Well, of course we do. My argument is against having this whole confirmation. Vote him up or down and move on. [Read More]
Tracked on August 7, 2005 03:16 PM
Tracked on August 12, 2005 08:54 AM
Well, ever since Senator John Kerry dropped the bombshell, during the debates on national television, that Vice President "Dick" Cheney has a gay lesbian homosexual daughter who lives openly with another woman, and I don't mean a "roommate", I was forced to examine my views on sexual perversion and even though I voted Republican in the presidential election, have decided that "Dick" Cheney can't control his adult gay lesbian homosexual daughter, so who am I to "judge" John Roberts?
I mean, my own father (I'll call him "Dad") wore plaid pants in the 70's and though I realize in retrospect he was probably gay as a goat fathered five children with my mother (to protect her privacy, I'll refer to her as "Mom"). I guess gay men who married in the 40's felt that the best way to keep from being outed was to have a monogamous relationship with a woman and produce abundant children. Still, compared to my heterosexual aunts and uncles, who normally produced six to eight offspring, my parents were relatively childless. Perhaps they should have taken a page from Judge John Roberts book, and adopted some little white children from somewhere to make up the deficit. By so doing, they would have pulled off the charade without anyone being the wiser.
So I say, if the Gay Judge Roberts and is obviously lesbian wife and homosexual children want to live that sort of lifestyle, let the gay times begin! The Republican party is a big tent, (or a big log cabin in this case). We can take it.
Posted by: MathMom at August 6, 2005 10:48 AM
Hmmm...come to think of it, a friend of "Mom" and "Dad" once said that my four siblings and I looked like we came from five different milkmen...
Posted by: MathMom at August 6, 2005 11:04 AM
I was so tickled by that plaid thing MathMom.
The Unit's dad had a pair of those plaid pants. He was a Navy captain and they were the most horrendous pink plaid. If you knew him they were the most atypical thing for him to wear, but he used to don them with a pair of bright pink socks and ... sandals.
To this day I am convinced the man did it mainly because it secretly horrified my MIL.
And then he'd stuff a big old cigar in his kisser and just laugh and laugh.
Now that was a man. Secure in who he was and not afraid, even back then, to poke a finger in people's expectations.
Posted by: Cassandra at August 6, 2005 11:06 AM
Speaking of which, my husband just walked out of the bedroom in a polo shirt that is now a very fetching shade of light pink. He's been insisting on doing his own laundry lately, and...
The Roberts nomination must be stopped...the future of the Marine Corps is at stake.
Posted by: Cassandra at August 6, 2005 11:11 AM
Do you think that the Gay Judge Roberts and the Dread Pirate Roberts are related?
Posted by: TigerHawk at August 6, 2005 11:13 AM
All that social deviancy stuff is related. Conservative beliefs lead to all kinds of nastiness.
I'd go on, but I don't want to shock the children.
Posted by: Cassandra at August 6, 2005 11:18 AM
Hey, get cross posting. I love this post. Get it on the home page home girl.
And tell your husband he looks fetching in pink.
*running away and being shot in the back*
Posted by: KJ at August 6, 2005 12:18 PM
I tried to post it, but it pushed your nice sidebar down to the bottom of the page. Plus I kinda wanted to leave your post on top because it was better, so I deleted it.
Posted by: Cassandra at August 6, 2005 12:42 PM
Oh, well I liked yours better.
No accounting for taste.
Feel free to play with the margins. I would be happy to widen the main body like I did with the Cheese.
Posted by: KJ at August 6, 2005 01:54 PM
You scare me, Cassandra. And I mean that in the best possible way! [snicker]
Posted by: Ith at August 6, 2005 02:42 PM
Why can't more people in Washington be more like Wonkette?
I can't tell you how difficult it is to restrain my worst snarky instincts right now.
Posted by: Pile On at August 6, 2005 03:41 PM
Speakin' of "Pink Houses", I was riding my Harley back from the Poconos today, listening to that dissident John "Cougar" Mellencamp on the CD player. I actually know his gardener, with whom I've gone 'round & 'round regarding his boss' VIEWS. He says everyone's entitled to an opinion, which is true, but in MY opinion people don't go to his concerts to hear that...
Posted by: camojack at August 6, 2005 04:26 PM
Posted by: Cassandra at August 6, 2005 04:48 PM
What is it about noodles anyway?
Posted by: spd rdr at August 6, 2005 08:02 PM
The Dems have a hit piece ready to go - it's a photshop induced pic of Judge Roberts in a plaid robe.
Posted by: DL at August 8, 2005 07:41 AM
cross posting leads to cross dressing and back masking on CDs. You are all wallowing in the quagmire of the New Deal and the War on Poverty.
As a Reformed Flower Chyld, I feel his payne.
Posted by: Cricket at August 9, 2005 10:23 AM
Enjoyed this article tremendously...or should I say it was just sooo Faaabulous!
Posted by: John Plymale at September 16, 2005 02:50 PM