ROD: I’ve seen enough now. Are you embarrassed yet? Our obligation and duty as Christians is to be loyal to our Christian Faith and fixed first principles, not to a fickle and treacherous party that has denied us over and over again any role in policy or personnel. I have 40 years with GOP, but am not so sure now.

(Name Withheld)

To view the entire article, visit

by Rod D. Martin
August 12, 2005

Dear _____________,

I admit I do not know John Roberts; however, I don’t know any person who does know him who believes any of this makes the slightest sense.

Even on the pro bono thing: he was assigned the work by his supervisor and he did it. And what did he do? He looked over some files and he played Scalia on a moot court panel, shooting down the gay rights people’s arguments. For this we’re supposed to be upset at him? I don’t see it.

But I really don’t see it for this main reason: even if Roberts had actually been their lawyer (and he wasn’t) and actually argued their case before the Supreme Court (and he didn’t), the issue at stake wasn’t gay rights but the proper interpretation of the Constitution (and he disagreed with the homosexuals’ interpretation!). If there’s a legitimate right and homosexuals benefit from it, shall we deny it to them through judicial activism? And if we’re not willing to do whatever it is you want to achieve legislatively, how are we different from the liberals who want to use the courts to twist laws whichever way they wish?

Jay Sekulow is constantly arguing cases which make life easier for Muslims, Jews, Hindus and so forth. Should we bar him from the Supreme Court too, because his work on behalf of Christians helps people we don’t necessarily agree with? Or should we rather note (and be grateful) that laws — and rights — apply to everyone equally, and these cases necessarily cut both ways?

I just don’t see it. But what I DO see is the usual suspects lining up to help the left divide and conquer. Howard Phillips came out with this on Tuesday. Joe Farah is out there, and Ann Coulter too. Has it not occurred to you that they are (a) alone, and (b) at the head of constituencies from whom they make their living by being “more conservative than thou”? And here they are at it again, when everyone from Jim Dobson to Lou Sheldon thinks they’re nuts. Doesn’t this make you wonder, even a little?

I’m a lawyer, and the life issue is of utmost importance to me, and from my perspective I see no fault in the man, and I can’t find anyone without an axe to grind who does. He may fool us all, and he may be the next Souter: I’ll be the first to say so. But you could have said the same thing about Scalia, Bork, Rehnquist and Thomas with equal evidence and equal likelihood of being correct. For my part, I look at the President’s record of nominations, and the many lessons he’s proved he’s learned since his dad messed any number of things up. And I just don’t see any reason other than paranoia to oppose Roberts.

Or to put that another way: Bush says he’s sure about the guy and has done the vetting and has a proven track record on this kind of thing. Coulter says she’s not sure one way or the other, so let’s oppose him. Phillips says he’s not sure one way or the other, so let’s oppose him. Farah says he’s seen a handful of wordings of things that weren’t quite the way he’d have put it, so clearly Roberts is the devil and Bush is a sell-out (which Farah will say any day of the week on any topic under heaven regardless).

Oh, and one other thing: you — and crucially, Joe Farah — base all of this on an article by Richard Cohen, whom even his own Washington Post refers to as “a left-leaning writer”, which is to say, a socialist, who wants Bush’s nominee to fail, no doubt in part by peeling off his conservative support before the coming leftist assault.

Do I detect a pattern? And shouldn’t Joe? And shouldn’t you?

Rod D. Martin, J.D.

It is impossible to enslave mentally or socially
a Bible-reading people. The principles of the
Bible are the groundwork of human freedom.

— Horace Greely