Judge Roberts helped a gay rights group? Washington is in a tizzy. The New York Times has reported that Roberts helped advise a gay rights group in one of their landmark cases.
The White House immediately sought to reassure Judge Roberts's conservative backers, telephoning prominent leaders, including Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, but it appeared that not all of them had been convinced.
The 1996 case, Romer v. Evans, is considered a touchstone in the culture wars, and it produced what the gay rights movement considers its most significant legal victory. By a 6-to-3 vote, the Supreme Court struck down a provision of the Colorado Constitution that nullified existing civil rights protections for gay men and lesbians and also barred the passage of new antidiscrimination laws.
posted by Hans Riemer at 11:12 AM
7 Comments:
Roberts helped advise a gay rights group?
Clearly, that must mean that Rock the Vote will now endorse Roberts. RIGHT?
Oh no, of course not. He was still nominated by a Republican, which means the "nonpartisan" Rock the Vote will assist in waging a Jihad on Roberts. RIGHT?
tanding up for voter rights and encouraging young people to vote seems to run counterintuitive to some folks thinking
Excellent use of euphemisms and doublespeak there to cover up what really is going on.
"Standing up for voter's rights" does not entail whining about voting security mechanisms like requiring some form of ID. It's a freaking ID, man, whining about something like that just shows how irrational and blindly partisan RTV really is.
"Encouraging young people to vote" does not entail constantly complaining in a partisan direction about everything a certain side wants to do. "Encouraging young people to vote" entails promoting fair, even minded political discussion with a non-partisan stance. Rock the Vote does not do that, so please, let us just cut the crap.
progressive thought and educating the masses often does
Stop calling it 'progressive', Stephen. "Progressive" implies that you're for ideas, for reform, and for change. The modern left and the modern Democratic Party does not offer ideas, does not offer reform, and certainly does not offer change. All it does is complain, much like Rock the Vote's writers do. It's time to replace the "progressive" tag with "reactionary liberal," because that is what the modern American left has become- whether you want to admit it or not.
QUOTE:
"Standing up for voter's rights" does not entail whining about voting security mechanisms like requiring some form of ID. It's a freaking ID, man, whining about something like that just shows how irrational and blindly partisan RTV really is.
/QUOTE:
Crock the Vote's particular criticism of IDs was irrational but again, there are plenty of good reasons to oppose many ID plans including the Georgia driver's license proposal mentioned before. Also, CRTV is very *biased* but only somewhat partisan. What I mean is, there is a meaningful distinction between saying "Vote Democrat!" or "Vote for *this* Democrat!", and selecting particular candidates that their target group has something in common with and saying "These kinds of candidates are great!" even if those candidates are all democrats. The first two are being partisan in direct violation of campaign laws, whereas the last is weasely and biased but only slightly partisan. At least that's the plausible case their lawyer would submit if you took them to court over it.
As for double-speak, allow me to be blunt: no matter what you hear about the young conservative uprising, the final tallies for the 18-34 demographic isn't going their way. The less people vote, the wider the Republican majority becomes.
First of all, it's "final tallies for the 18-32 demographic AREN'T", not isn't.
Anyway, your statement about "the less people vote, the wider the Republican majority becomes" is perhaps the most ill-informed comment you have made yet. We set a record in total amount of votes in 2004, and the President won with the most votes recorded in US history. Compare that to the Ohio special election which Rock the Vote's Nicole Brown went nuts over, and you'll see that the "Republican majority" was much smaller, with many less people voting than a standard election in the district- or compared to 2004.
This is a red country with tiny patches of blue interspersed, and that is what it comes down to. You can increase or decrease voting, but the numbers still wind up the same. That's why pollsters are so successful with sampling.
In any case, my point still stands- you, Stephen, have thrown around euphemisms and doublespeak like any typical Democrat these days would do. And it all has to do with the fact that you cannot reveal your true views on the issues, because people would run for the hills.
W got 45% of the 18-34 demo; his personal accounts plan is also supported by the majority of the demo. Rock the Vote would have you think that 90% of the youth are crazy liberals. Absolutely not the truth. The youth is a very diverse blend of political affiliations; which is why the so-called "nonpartisan" Rock the Vote should promote all views, and the discussion of those views, instead of taking a liberal side on everything.
I cannot name ONE example in which Rock the Vote defended a moderate or conservative stance over a liberal one.
I think you guys really need to cool it. Some of you have gotten totally off-topic. I thought this was about Roberts helping a gay rights group but obviously, you guys can't stay on topic because it seems to me like someone's always bitching about other issues and tearing up each other's posts, rather than discussing the current topic.
Personally, I don't really care whether Roberts is a Republican or not. What matters to me is how he stands on the issues, and what his plans are if he gets chosen as the next Justice.
If you have that big of a problem with RTV, then why not complain to them about their "biased" stance instead of whining about it so much? There's an idea.
I'm with Stephen on this one:
"I am curious, however, if my anonymous friend and 'noid' have another voter advocacy group that, in their opinion, is far more non-partisan than RTV. I'd like to see something constructive said about the issues at hand rather than the messenger. Perhaps I ask for too much."
But I also agree with "anonymous" on one thing. RTV should be a fair, non-partisan group as it suggests, but whether it is or not is for each of us to decide. Just one question for the anonymous poster. Why don't you identify yourself? I'm not afraid to tell ya'll who I am (and I'm not a registered Blogger).
Anyways, just another dumb liberal sharing my thoughts...
"Personally, I don't really care whether Roberts is a Republican or not. What matters to me is how he stands on the issues, and what his plans are if he gets chosen as the next Justice."
And thats the problem with the way our country views Court nominees. Judges have no issues and quite frankly should never be allowed to voice opinion in court. The job of any and all judges is to uphold the laws of the land, and in the case of the Supreme Court Justices that law is the Constitution. I could care less what Roberts did as an attorney, but if he came out and stated that he would support Gay Rights or Abortion or any other topic that hasn't been legislated and therefore should fall into the category as a state issue then I would be concerned.
Until then Roberts gets a pass.
The very fact that supreme court appointments are so bitterly contested is indicative of how much the court has turned into a legislative branch. So sad.
Post a Comment
<< Home