Have you done any volunteer work for "gay rights" groups lately? No? Well, me neither. But John Roberts has. At least he did a decade ago, when he did pro bono legal work for groups seeking to overturn the will of the people of Colorado and grant homosexuals protected status under the law. They won, and John Roberts helped them. He didn't even bother to charge for services rendered. What were all those campaign promises about appointing Supreme Court justices in the tradition of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas?

Yea Dan you are "right". We certainly don't need a guy who's legal expertise helped persuade the Supreme Court to issue a landmark 1996 ruling protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation.
Next.

Dan, one of two things can be said of RC based on his comment above; he either believes that the SC exists to make laws, whereas I was always taught this was the province of the legislative branch; or, he didn't read Scalia's dissent, wherein he eloquently states that powers not specifically set forth in the Constitution to the Feds are left to the States. RC, see Roe v. Wade, penumbra, mythical Right to Privacy.

The precedent of Romer v Evans may be even worse than Roe precedent. It essentially holds that a state law (even one passed by referendum) can be struck down whenever the Court imputes "animus" as a reason that the law was enacted. (And the court majority had no evidence of that animus except that the people disagreed with their worldview.)
This is the most disturbing evidence about Roberts so far. I still hold some hope that he was only following orders and doing a good job for his client, that he planned for 20 years to be a stealth candidate and that he learned from the attacks on Judge Bork that you have to do this kind of pro bono stuff. (Bork was viciously attacked for not doing pro-bono work for an extended period. It turned out that was the period his first wife was dying and he had terrible medical bills to pay and that he was unwilling to exploit these facts in his own defense.)

Still I have to say that even my hope is fading fast and I'm the kind of guy who thinks the Nationals can still win the pennant

The "real" John Roberts will, in all probability, not stand up until safely ensconced in black robes.

This is extremely troubling to me. How many prospective Supreme Court Justices have publicly decried the "making of law" by the judicial system and then happily legislated away after achieving their position on the court? All the while insisting that they are not doing so.

Following the Roberts betrayal, what will be the social Right's new excuse for their unconditional support of Bush?

It never ceases to amaze me how folks like RC who applaud the words of the Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey ("At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.") when it comes to a woman's "right" to exercise her free moral choice in destroying another life, don't so much as bat an eye when they call for the bringing to bear of the full force of the central state in forcing their morality on others.

The right of private entities to "discriminate" is essential the preservation of private property rights, and by extension freedom. Despite the claims of the proponents of anti-discrimination laws, these statutes, by their own logic, inevitably impose a system of "affirmative action," quotas, and preferences on private businesses and groups (neocons who adulate King while condemning racial preferences should keep this in mind).

Afterall, since no one can read a person's mind, the only way to prove you have not "discriminated" against someone is for the government to come in and set a quota on the number of people from the "protected class" required to be involved in the organization.

Protecting the rights to private property, freedom of association, and freedom of conscience was what the people of Colorado attempted to do by passing Amendment 2.

It never ceases to amaze me how folks like RC who applaud the words of the Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey ("At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.") when it comes to a woman's "right" to exercise her free moral choice in destroying another life, don't so much as bat an eye when they call for the bringing to bear of the full force of the central state in forcing their morality on others.

The right of private entities to "discriminate" is essential the preservation of private property rights, and by extension freedom. Despite the claims of the proponents of anti-discrimination laws, these statutes, by their own logic, inevitably impose a system of "affirmative action," quotas, and preferences on private businesses and groups (neocons who adulate King while condemning racial preferences should keep this in mind).

Afterall, since no one can read a person's mind, the only way to prove you have not "discriminated" against someone is for the government to come in and set a quota on the number of people from the "protected class" required to be involved in the organization.

Protecting the rights to private property, freedom of association, and freedom of conscience was what the people of Colorado attempted to do by passing Amendment 2.

Please stop making sweeping statments about what Neocons "think."

The majority of the readers here haven't even gotten a firm grasp on what a Neoconservative IS yet. It isn't just someone who likes Bush.

Ben-T,

James comment on Dr. King is accurate as regards neoconservatives. They do much admire him as a whole, along with FDR, Lincoln, and Churchill, all much more so than others on the right. That isn't a controversial point.

But thanks for insulting "the majority of readers here," who's minds you apparently know so well. Of course you know what the majority of readers here thinks through, what, esp? But none of us, such as James, could possibly know any of the views of neocons given that they are only a prominent group of intellectuals and writers whose views are dished out to us daily in dozens of media outlets.

"James comment on Dr. King is accurate as regards neoconservatives. They do much admire him as a whole, along with FDR, Lincoln, and Churchill, all much more so than others on the right. That isn't a controversial point." -Brian

Yes they admire these people, along with the vast majority of the American populace. It is you guys who are the exception to the rule here, not us.

"But thanks for insulting "the majority of readers here," who's minds you apparently know so well. Of course you know what the majority of readers here thinks through, what, esp? But none of us, such as James, could possibly know any of the views of neocons given that they are only a prominent group of intellectuals and writers whose views are dished out to us daily in dozens of media outlets." -Brian

Because people at Flynn Files are constantly making sweeping statements about Neoconservative thought that are false. Neoconservatism, as I stated, does not equate with the Bush administration.

"The Neocon Reader" Edited by Irwin Stelzer

"Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea" By Irving Kristol

"Commentary" magazine.

Those are bastions of Neoconservative thought, not Fox News.

Nice point. Roberts would not have done pro bono work for homosexuals if he opposed their agenda. Somthing stinks.

Dan, Excellent post as always.

I'm confused that so many Conservatives seem to like this nominee. Maybe the reason "Conservatives" like him is because the "Conservatives" who like him and write the articles praising hime are actually "Republicans." There is a difference between a "Republican" and a "Conservative."

What is perhaps even more confusing is why liberals don't seem to like this nominee.

I knew it...John Roberts is a nancy-boy!