Redstate

O'Connor voted the right way on Lawrence v. Texas.

So many people have come out in support of Roberts.  These are wise men who have worked directly with him.  I'm sure they had conversations before and after work, conversations that were off the record.  I say we trust them on this one.  I mean, Bush had a lot of great candidates to choose from. Why would he screw us over?

Cohen's spin is overblown.  Still, as Ann Althouse observed, it is reasonable to suppose that Roberts would not have volunteered his time if he found the case personally repugnant (not the same as disagreeing on the law).  And Rush Limbaugh and others are expressing muted disappointment that Roberts helped with the case, lending a little credance to Cohen's overblown claim that conservatives are 'alarmed' that Roberts would lend a hand to gays.

Well, well. I knew that social conservatives would get all hot and bothered about Roberts giving a helping hand in overturning the referendum in Colorado. They are really doing a splendid job at self restraint (maybe because the sane among them are looking at the bigger picture). Now in my not so humble opinion this can mean two things. First, Roberts was just giving colleagues a helping hand regardless of what he thought of the case itself. Two, underneath it all---Roberts is not a conservative, but a FLAMING libertarian (to which I'd hoist a libation)

...almost, that Cohen had bee outed as a gay rights crusader.

This does cause some concern, but I personally do not see it as an indication that the nominee has signed-on to any agenda.

Your guess is as good as mine, but I personally don't know many conservative Catholics who are 'flaming libertarians,' to the extent of wiping out morality based legislation as unconstitutional, a la Lawrence v. Texas.  I'll bet Roberts' personal views are closer to George Will's than to Glenn Reynolds'.

Sorry, you're going to have lay it on a bit thicker for this lazy eyed Buckeye.  You meant she voted "the right way" for the Richard Cohens of the world.

Her concurrence in Lawrence kept me up the night I read it, screaming and a-shouting at lefty peers over the phone/ on instant messenger.

personally I thought decision on the Lawrence v. Texas case was correct. No matter what a person morally thinks of homosexuality, it was more a matter of privacy than anything else. There are arguments about how the SCOTUS has and should regard the issue of privacy all over the place. Sopmetimes I think common sense has to come into play here. You can make the same argument re: Lawrence,  What if the cops  came in (using the same facts that they though a crime was in progress) and found them smoking a joint instead of having consensual gay sex? Would the argument regarding privacy still apply? Well anyway, you can segue into a lot of opinions.

Cohen is a good one to watch in order to get a straight shot of the liberal zeitgeist.

1. Social Conservatves "hate gays".  That is explicitly how liberals think, and they do not hesitate to say it. They are convinced that no rational grounds exist for making distinctions based on sexual behavior, so the only ground left must be pure hate. The lack of imagination in the standard-issue liberal mind is astonishing. They cannot conceive of a person who would oppose, for example, gay marriage, on the grounds of principled adherence to timeless human social rules.  Nope. Must be hate.  
   
2. It could be that conservatives need to be reassured not that Roberts is a "gay hater", but that he maintains a principled and restrained judicial philosophy despite his involvement in a very activist-oriented case.  

These things are not difficult to parse. The fact that Cohen deliberately chooses to attribute the very worst possible motives to his opponents shows how intellectually dishonest he is.

While running errands this afternoon I had the chance to listen to him talk about the article and how his comments were completely distorted.  He made it clear that he supported the Roberts nomination and his earlier comments were not that he was concerned about Roberts' pro bono work but rather that it might be of concern to some conservatives.

Judging by the reaction here, I would say (and Rush was in agreement) that it seemed to be a minor issue for only a small number and didn't have much of an impact on the nomination except that it may make it harder for the opponents of Roberts' nomination to paint him as some sort of "extremist" ideologue.

If I had been on the Lawrence Court, I would have been looking hard for a way to knock out statutes aimed only at one variey of private non-marital sex some find 'icky.'  But I don't like the way Kennedy got there -- by saying that traditional ideas of morality alone do not provide even a minimal 'rational basis' for legislation limiting even minor liberties.  In due course, the Court will hold that it's still OK to criminalize adult incest, and in so doing will show that its decisions are driven by results, not principles.

It's a shame that some folks (mostly the very religious wing of our party) hustled out so quickly to downplay - almost deny - that Roberts had ever done anything to support gay civil rights.

We Republicans could do ourselves a lot of good by coming out (excuse the expression) as the party of equal rights instead of preferences or prejudice.  Heaven knows we keep seeing reports of gays in the party or on so-and-so's staff...what's the big deal?

...to Lawrence v. Texas; I remember reading Justice Scalia voicing dissent which went something like "you're really opening up a real Pandora's box here." By judging the facts of the case, justice was served. Even among folks who disapprove of homosexuality for moral/religious reasons, there is generally a live and let live, "just don't put it in my face" or "whatever you do in the privacy of your bedroom I am not interested in" kind of attitude. When a case gets to the higher courts we all know it's not the facts that are being judged but the constitutionality of the law. The issue was privacy.   Supreme Court cases as we know are not black and white and the train of thought can segue from one thing to another. I believe Scalia is right that Lawrence will be a Pandora's box even though from the factual and man in the street point of view the right thing was done. There is a case (help me on this....I think it's Muth v. Franks re; incest. I do not know the facts of the original case, but do know that the average person does not look upon incest in the same manner as consensual gay sex in the privacy of one's home. Will the court be able to restrain itself and interpret Lawrence in a very strict and limited way so as not to segue into insanity?