The “Christian Right” is telling us that George Bush kept his campaign promise, and has appointed a true conservative for service on the Supreme Court. For example, James Dobson, who is apparently incapable of criticizing any Republican, says that Bush “is to be commended for keeping his promise to the American people by selecting such an impartial, accomplished jurist to fill this crucial seat on the high court.”
“Judge Roberts is an unquestionably qualified attorney and judge with impressive experience in government and the private sector,” Dobson tells us. “He has demonstrated at every stop on his career path the legal acumen, judicial temperament and personal integrity necessary to be a Supreme Court justice.”
Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council, said, “President Bush has chosen an exceptionally well-qualified and impartial nominee for the Supreme Court. Judge Roberts is widely respected for his fair judgment, intellect and integrity, all things qualifying him to serve as the next Supreme Court Justice. I believe that Judge Roberts will strictly interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench.”
Jay Sekulow, who supported Bush’s nomination of pro-abort Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General, said Roberts is an "exceptional choice who will bring sound legal reasoning to the high court," and that his American Center for Law and Justice organization will start a national campaign to ensure that Roberts is confirmed: “We must stand together and let our voices be heard! Urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to approve the nomination of John Roberts.”
Additional endorsements from many other allegedly Christian and/or Conservative organizations and individuals support John Roberts’ nomination. What are we to think of this?
Perhaps we can learn something about the Roberts’ nomination from a rather unlikely source: The Late Show with David Letterman.
On July 21, Letterman had NBC newsreader Brian Williams on his program as his main guest. During the course of the interview, in addition to cracking a few jokes about Roberts, Letterman asked Williams some serious questions regarding the nomination. Williams’ responses are quite enlightening. His first comment, about Supreme Court nominations in general, was especially telling. Williams said, “…short of declaring war, this is the most important thing we elect a President to do.”
Really? Has Brian Williams never read the U.S. Constitution? Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives the Congress, not the President, the authority to declare war. Why would Brian Williams (who just happens to be a member of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations) wish to misinform Americans like that? Perhaps because his fellow CFR members pull the strings of this President and his Administration as they have for decades? And that it is to their advantage to legitimize the Invasion and occupation of Iraq, Empire building, and other unconstitutional acts of President Bush (and previous Presidents) as part of their one-world agenda?
When Letterman referred to Roberts as a “staunch conservative,” Williams replied,
“I don’t know about staunch – uh, he has a lot of respect for standing law. And the court also has a way of changing people when they are on it, as you know. You know, Eisenhower thought he was putting a Conservative on the Court and got a flaming Liberal, and so did Bush’s father, President George Herbert Walker Bush.”
Regarding that alleged “change,” when Letterman asked Williams if that was an “awareness that comes with maturity, or what changes a person like that?” Williams replied,
“Maybe it’s knowing it’s a job-for-life, you are untouchable, [his emphasis] and that you can be true to thine own self, you know, you can, you can, you can really do a gut check.”
If Roberts really is the solid conservative that Dobson, Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt and all the other “conservatives” are saying he is, doesn’t it strike you odd that a “staunch liberal” like Williams is making sure Roberts is acceptable to mainstream Americans? By challenging Letterman’s use of the term “staunch,” that’s exactly what he’s doing. “No, he’s not a staunch conservative, he's just barely a conservative, and once he’s on the bench, his true colors will show,” is what Williams is saying. Williams, the Tom Brokaw clone, made several other complimentary comments about Roberts and called him “highly confirmable.”
As far as his contention that there is something about the Supreme Court that “changes” people, this, too, is a lie. Eisenhower didn’t think “he was putting a Conservative on the Court and got a flaming Liberal.” Eisenhower knew full well what he was doing when he appointed Earl Warren, as did the elder Bush when he appointed Souter. And although Williams didn’t mention them, it was the same thing when the biggest phony conservative of all time, Ronald Reagan, appointed Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy. Phony conservative Presidents appoint phony conservative Justices. Both the Presidents and the Justices have the same one-world agenda being promoted by the cabal that has controlled Washington for years. Neither the Presidency nor being appointed to the Supreme Court changes anyone – it simply gives them the opportunity to reveal their true nature.
Remember the old fable about the scorpion and the fox? The scorpion needed to get across the river, and convinced the fox to take him to the other side. Initially the fox was afraid the scorpion would sting him, but the scorpion said he wouldn’t because they would both drown. That made sense to the fox, so he let the scorpion ride on his back. Halfway across the river, the scorpion stung the fox. Just before he died, the fox asked the scorpion, "Why did you do that? Now we are both going to die." The scorpion replied: "Its my nature."
Whether you are talking about the Justices or the Presidents who appoint them, we are not seeing people “changed” once they are in a position of power, we are seeing the true nature of evil people - wolves in sheep’s clothing - that had just been waiting for their chance to abuse that power.
Before we look specifically at Roberts, do you really think that after all the immoral, illegal and unconstitutional things George Bush has done while in office (Iraq invasion and occupation, the Patriot Act, Real ID, outspending Clinton on abortion, the "War on Terror," being pro-homosexual and pro-Islam, leaving our borders wide open, Medicare spending, "guest worker" program, out of control and inflationary spending, nationalizing airport security, the Homeland Security Department, to name only a few), that he would all of a sudden do something contrary to his nature? Isn’t it more likely that any Bush nominee, like Bush himself, is a wolf in sheep’s clothing? Even if you know nothing about Roberts, you can bet your life that any single nomination, or combination of nominations (remember, Bush may have the opportunity to nominate 1 or 2 more Justices before he leaves office), will not change the overall makeup or voting skew of the Supreme Court. Until we change the makeup of Congress, and get a Congress that not only has the backbone to use its power and authority to check both the President and the Court, but will also vote according to the Constitution, we are never going to change the Court nor have a good President that appoints good Justices.
Now let’s look at Mr. Roberts.
It’s said that bank tellers are often trained to detect counterfeit bills by handling new bills 8 hours a day for a week, and then when a counterfeit bill passes through their hands, they know it’s counterfeit just by the feel; before they even look at it. They are so familiar with the real thing that it’s a piece of cake to detect a phony. When it comes to politics, we can do the same thing.
When someone is well acquainted with the US Constitution, the principles of limited government, the writings of the Founding Fathers, etc., and they put principle over personality, they can detect a wolf in sheep’s clothing in a heartbeat.
We are being told over and over again about what a brilliant man John Roberts is – High School in three years, Harvard in three years, clerked for Rehnquist, argued 39 cases before the high court and won 25 of them, etc. But just how "brilliant" is this man?
Following Bush’s announcement of his nomination, Mr. Roberts made a very brief acceptance speech. In his first two sentences, he said,
“Before I became a judge, my law practice consisted largely of arguing cases before the Court. That experience left me with a profound appreciation for the role of the Court in our constitutional democracy and a deep regard for the Court as an institution.”
What constitutional democracy is this brilliant jurist speaking of? In the same way that Brian Williams should know that the Congress, not the President, declares war, shouldn’t someone as brilliant as Roberts know that the United States is a republic, not a democracy?
If you total the number of times the word “democracy” is found in the US Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the 50 State Constitutions, the number is exactly zero.
However, we pledge allegiance to the flag and to “the Republic for which it stands.” Article 4, Section 4 of the US Constitution “guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” Since Roberts is supposedly such a brilliant Constitutional attorney, shouldn’t he know this? Apparently not, since he ended his acceptance speech by saying,
“And I also want to acknowledge my children -- my daughter, Josie, my son, Jack -- who remind me every day why it's so important for us to work to preserve the institutions of our democracy.”
His use of the word “democracy” – twice in an extremely short speech - should be a big red flag for those familiar with the difference between mobocracy and the rule of law.
Christians have been hoping for a Conservative Supreme Court nominee so that Roe v Wade can be overturned. It’s not going to happen with Roberts on the bench. Recall that Bush told us that a pro-life, anti-abortion position was of such little importance to him that it would not be a litmus test for picking a Supreme Court Justice. While many so-called conservatives have been telling us that Roberts helped write some briefs where he argued against Roe, remember that he was simply doing the job his boss asked him to do. Also remember that he disassociated himself from those briefs and said that those briefs "do not necessarily reflect his views." So what are his views on abortion?
On April 30, 2003, during his confirmation hearing for the District of Columbia Circuit, Roberts was asked specifically by Illinois Senator Richard J. Durbin,
“I have been an attorney, represented a client, sometimes argued a position that I did not necessarily buy, personally. And so I am asking you today what is your position on Roe v. Wade?”
How did Mr. Roberts answer that very direct question? Well, he told us that he is pro-abortion, and will uphold Supreme Court decisions that supposedly made abortion legal:
"Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. It is not--it's a little more than settled. It was reaffirmed in the face of a challenge that it should be overruled in the Casey decision. Accordingly, it's the settled law of the land. There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent, as well as Casey." [all emphasis mine]
Remember Brian Williams' comment that Roberts "has a lot of respect for standing law?" It makes sense, now, doesn’t it?
So George Bush has not picked a pro-life nominee, has he? There is NOTHING in Roberts' personal views that conflicts with legal abortions. By the way, the brilliant Mr. Roberts should know that the Supreme Court does not legislate – only the Congress can do that. A decision in a case is the “law” of that case, and a decision can certainly be used as a precedent, but a Supreme Court decision is not the “law of the land,” no matter how much we are told otherwise.
What else do we know about Roberts?
While many of the pseudo- and neo-cons have been telling us that Roberts would be a strict constructionist when interpreting the Constitution, in the same hearings mentioned above, Mr. Roberts said, "I don’t have an overarching, guiding way of reading the Constitution."
Now let’s look at some recent events.
In a July 20, 2005 article in CitizenLink (Dobson’s political e-zine) entitled, Roberts: A Man of Character, we were told:
“Pro-family leaders today told reporters that even though we don't know everything there is to know about the nominee, what we do know speaks well of him.
“Focus on the Family Action Chairman James C. Dobson, Ph.D., said Roberts is clearly not a David Souter—a reference to a current Supreme Court justice who was nominated by the elder President Bush in the 1980s. Souter was expected to be a strong conservative, but has proven to be one of the most liberal of the justices sitting on the court. No one knew the truth about Souter's positions during his confirmation, Dobson said.
“I think we do know a lot about Judge Roberts,” Dobson said, “from his life, from his record, from the things that he has stood for, and we feel much more comfortable with this nomination than we would have with Justice Souter.”
Please take a moment and think about what Dobson said there. James Dobson has told us that Roberts is “clearly not a David Souter.” How does he know that? “From his life, from his record, from the things that he has stood for?” What are those things, Doctor? What is in his record, or in his life, that is Conservative, pro-life, or constructionist? At this point, I know of nothing. I do know of exactly the opposite in his record, though.
The next day, in an article entitled, Abortion, Litmus Tests and the Supreme Court, the Dobson organization then went on to explain away Roberts’ pro-abortion statements and to explain that we don’t have a right to know what his views are. We were also told, “The fact is: We simply don't know what position Roberts might take on abortion.”
If that’s true, why should we be supporting Roberts? If we really don’t know Roberts’ position on abortion, why is Dr. Dobson bending over backwards to push Roberts? But, actually, we DO know his position, don’t we? Roberts already told us: “There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that [Roe v Wade] precedent…” He didn’t even dig up the old saw about being “personally opposed to abortion, but he didn’t want to impose his views on anyone else.” (btw, try that one with murder, rape, arson, or stealing, and see where it gets you.)
Carrie Gordon Earll, a senior policy analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said, “we need to be careful not to overreact to Robert's response to the question [of abortion.”] She also said, "So the Roberts nomination is an excellent opportunity for the pro-life/pro-family movement to formulate a bigger vision [my emphasis] of what the judiciary should stand for—and if we resort to talk of litmus tests for pro-life or pro-family judges, we are no better than the liberal Democrats who are doing the same on the issue of abortion." What “bigger vision” is that? What “bigger vision” of a pro-life movement can possibly exist without being pro-life to start with? What can possibly come before life? If the proper role of government is to protect life, liberty and property, how can it protect your liberty and property if it allowed your life to be taken? How can the heretofore pro-life organization, Focus on the Family, recommend a pro-abort like Roberts because of this alleged “bigger vision” - whatever that is? How can they continue to call themselves pro-life? That statement is shocking, and Focus on the Family has lost the right to call itself pro-life. Dr. Dobson and Focus have either sold out to the enemy, or they were phonies to begin with.
Does it not seem strange to you that so-called Conservative Christians like James Dobson (and many others not mentioned) would first tell us that Bush kept his promise in nominating a pro-life, strict constructionist, but not be able to provide examples of either? Does it not seem strange that Dobson now makes excuses for Roberts’ views and says we shouldn’t even be questioning his personal views? As John Lofton recently said, “If John Roberts had, in his personal views, pro-life views, he could not support Roe v Wade as an Appellate Judge, a Supreme Court Judge, or the Village Dog Catcher.” That’s the point – a real Christian, or a real pro-life candidate is not going to say there is NOTHING in their personal views that conflicts with abortion. A real Christian is not going to endorse a nominee or candidate like that, either. Doesn’t it also seem strange that “Conservative Christians” are going to support the same candidate that Hillary Clinton is going to support? How can James Dobson, Rush Limbaugh, et al, be on the same side as Hillary Clinton? How can people like Dobson and Janet Parshall, alleged Christians, say that it is wrong to ask candidates about their religious views? This makes no sense at all. There SHOULD be a litmus test. Are you going to obey man rather than God? I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but Dobson has a tremendous influence with the Christians in this country, so don't skim over that question. Stop for a moment, and seriously ask yourself: Why would James Dobson encourage you to support someone, when he (Dobson), admittedly cannot offer any evidence that the someone (Roberts) is a strict constructionist or pro-life, especially when Roberts himself has said that he is NOT pro-life, and has no particular way of interpreting the Constitution? Why would Dobson, Sekulow, Perkins, Parshall and the rest, encourage you to support a nominee that they admit they have to explain away his personal views to make him palatable to Christians? A nominee that Hillary Clinton is going to vote to confirm? "Yes, we admit we know little about him. Yes, we know he's said abortion isn’t a problem for him. Yes, we know he says he's not a strict constructionist. Yes, we know President Bush said the pro-life position is not important to him and he has no litmus test for Justices. Yes, we know Bush chastised Christians that objected to him appointing pro-abort Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General (and basically told them to drop dead.) Yes, we know that Bush has given more money to fund abortion than Clinton. Yes, we know we told you that Roberts' personal religious views are not important and shouldn’t be questioned. But trust us, Roberts is a "Man of Character" and needs to be confirmed." Isn't there something wrong with that picture?
And now that Roberts' pro-bono work for a "gay rights" organization has become public, why is it that Dobson and Focus on the Family continue bending over backwards to support him? "While this is certainly not welcome news to those of us who advocate for traditional values, it is by no means a given that John Roberts' personal views are reflected in his involvement in this case," Focus says. "That's what lawyers do - represent their firm's clients, whether they agree with what those clients stand for or not." Except that this was pro-bono work, not work he was assigned to. When Roberts was offered the work, he said, "Let's do it!" This man enthusiastically worked free for a major “gay rights” issue that went to the Supreme Court. Will someone from Focus on the Family please explain why they are supporting another of Bush’s pro-abortion buddies? (Like they did with pro-abort Alberto Gonzales.) Please?
And now, over the last few days, we find out that John Roberts, while serving as the head of Hogan & Hartson’s appellate division, worked on behalf of Playboy Entertainment Group in a case that went before the Supreme Court in 1999.
Playboy’s case challenged the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which required cable TV operators to scramble sexually explicit content or restrict the pornography to hours when children would be unlikely to view it. Playboy won the case, 5-4, with Roberts’ help, just like the pro-homosexual case. So he is not only pro-abortion, but he wants children to be able to view pornography. “We don’t feel compelled to either attack him or defend him at this point,” said Peter Brandt, director of issues response for Focus on the Family. Dr. Dobson has a lot of ‘splainin’ to do about this “Man of Character.”
Now let’s switch gears a bit, and look at Roberts from a different angle.
On The New American magazine website, in an article entitled The Roberts Nomination: Presidential Power Uber Alles, William Norman Grigg informs us that, “The Roberts nomination is part of the Bush administration's drive to create an executive branch dictatorship in the name of fighting the “war on terror.”” What does he mean by that? Article 1, Section 8, the same Article that gives the Congress, not the President, the power to declare war also give the Congress the power “To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court.” In other words, only the Congress, not the President, can create federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court. Now back to Grigg, referring to something that happened only 2 weeks ago: “Roberts participated in a July 15 decision by a panel from the Washington, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the Bush administration’s claim that the president can designate any individual as an "enemy combatant" and detain that individual indefinitely. The July 15 decision also assented to the administration’s claim that the president can create special military tribunals to conduct trials of enemy combatants, rendering decisions that are not subject to judicial review of any sort. “The Constitution specifies that Congress, not the president, can create federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court. [Bush appointee and pro-abort] Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez applauded the Appeals Court’s decision. “The president's authority under the laws of our nation to try enemy combatants is a vital part of the global war on terror,” stated Gonzalez, claiming that the ruling “reaffirms this critical authority.” “In fact, that decision deferred to a Bush administration putsch. By creating a court, the administration poached from the exclusive legislative powers of Congress; by claiming that the president can "try" anyone, the administration usurped the powers of the judiciary. This new doctrine of presidential authority effectively consolidates in one individual executive, legislative, and judicial authority. As Madison (quoting Jefferson) pointed out in The Federalist, number 48: “The concentrating of these in the same hands, is precisely the definition of despotic government.” “By assenting to that doctrine as part of the Appeals Court panel, John Roberts has endorsed executive despotism as a “wartime” necessity – in a war that may last for a generation or more. His nomination thus represents George W. Bush’s effort at building what Rick Montgomery of the Kansas City Star calls "a wartime Supreme Court.” Grigg concludes with this evaluation of John Roberts: “For those who support the Bush administration’s quasi-dictatorial view of “wartime” presidential powers, the best Supreme Court nominee would have been Alberto Gonzalez sans the potential conflict of interest. John G. Roberts, Jr., appears to be that man.” So while the John Kerrys of the world will put on a dog and pony show (Kerry has requested all documents and memos “in their entirety” from Roberts' tenure in the Reagan and first Bush administrations), in the end Roberts will be appointed to the Court, and nothing will have changed. And a few years down the road - or sooner - after we have seen Roberts' true colors, the James Dobsons, Jay Sekulows, Rush Limbaughs, Janet Parshalls and Hugh Hewitts will continue to make excuses for the Reagans and Bushes, wring their hands and lament the bias of the Supreme Court, and never admit that it was their fault that by supporting “Conservative Republican” Presidents instead of telling the truth about them, they got just what they deserved (or in some traitorous cases, were working to achieve.) But the bottom line is that the Roberts' nomination/confirmation (or anyone else’s, if for some bizarre reason Roberts is not confirmed) is irrelevant. Getting all excited about it is a waste of time and resources, and more importantly it is a diversion from the real issue – restoring the Republic by electing Congressmen that will honor their oaths to the Constitution. The sooner we realize that, the better. We will never have a Constitutionalist President that will appoint constructionist Justices until we follow Jefferson’s advice and "bind [men] down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." George Bush’s nomination of John Roberts is simply another rung on the ladder in his quest to be King. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. — O'Brien, torture specialist in George Orwell's 1984