Redstate

As Mark notes on Redhot, "Methinks they either don't understand what exactly Roberts did in this case, or they don't care."

It's both; this is a publicity stunt with a willing megaphone in the MSM. Of little, probably no. consequence, so let's not help their fundraising.

... exactly who is behind this group no one has ever heard of. Far to often the left sets up groups that are used as MSM tools to attack conservatives from within.

There is a group that was recently set up by DLC(Hillary) liberals to offer sensible gun control in the name of reasonable hunters.

I think this is the same clap trap.

Time to dig deep.

It is reported by Matt Drudge that CNN will run a NARAL ad against SCOTUS nominee John Roberts that is patently false. If CNN has any concern for its integrity or reputation, you may want to read the following:

http://www.factcheck.org/article340.html

shows that the registrant for publicadvocateusa.com is jim huber

Same guy.

Now I understand how a link to ATol ended up here.  The guy's a jokester.

In 1641 Rene Descartes gave the world the immortal statement "I think, therefore I am", proving his existence. Cognito ergo sum as it is known in Latin has forced students of philosophy to write long, meaningless papers discussing his profundity in each of the subsequent 364 years.

More profound to political groups in the age of the internet is the need to protest in order to prove their existence. Those special people who give the breath of life to these groups -- also known as donors -- only give when their soul is full of outrage, and only give to fellow protesters of the particular outrage of that etherial moment. A group is therefore better able to validate its existence by remaining in a constant state of protest.

Maybe Descartes could have gone a step further in his syllogism by incorporating the relationship of the group and the donor by viewing the codependence from the view of the protesting group. I think from the groups point of view the relationship was possibly expressed by another great philosopher "There's a sucker born every minute"

just did a whois on Public Advocate of the United States It's registered to Eugene Delgaudio, who in 1998 gave $500 to Randall Terry according to opensecrets.org, and $1000 to Michael Rothfeld in 2000. Now I know who Terry is (most recently spokesman for the parents of Terri Schiavo), but cannot find much info about Rothfeld other than he is a political lobbyist (and don't know for which primary he ran in).

A CMS named Backdoor?  And he's trying to sell it?  

is the correct whois search. I had the wrong one upthread (.com instead of .org)

I did a little research and found some interesting info on this group.  I've never heard of them before now but I did manage to find their tax info on http://www.guidestar.org which gives a picture of who they are.  

This is a Sec. 501(c)(4) organization located in Falls Church, Virginia.  

Looking at their 2003 IRS Form 990 (the tax return for non-profits) I see that they only had $17,560 in salary expenses for the entire year. This means that they have a limited staff to say the least, probably one part time secretary.  None of the directors are paid a salary.  Essentially this is essentially a paper organization.  

One interesting note from their tax return is that they paid their president's wholy owned management consultant company $148,000 during the year.  (Attachment 7 to their 2003 IRS Form 990.)  As a corporate attorney myself I doubt that there is anything wrong with this assuming that the board properly approved the transaction, but it does show that they don't have a big presence yet and hence the reason why no one has ever heard of them.  Many groups start off this way.  The obvious point is that this is a small group, one employee at most and as such doesn't really have the clout that the article linked to above gives them credit for.  

You can view the organization's tax information for yourself by going to www.guidestar.org (free registration required)and running a search for "Public Advocate of the United States."  

The organization's website is:  http://www.publicadvocateusa.org/

Is this the same Rothfeld?

Sometimes you just have to let the opposition hang themselves.

That fact checking was stunning in that any 'reputable' news outlet would use the results of the fact checking as the news item, not run the commercial.

But the MSM is long gone now.  I would sell my shares in all of them since they have decided to go down swinging - and ugly.

Any one interested, I posted about the same here

http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/8/9/19514/40886

I guess I am getting too use to their slimey foul balls.  They are not even news worthy anymore.

I hate left over copy buffers (yes, I am a computer geek).  My post is here

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/488

I appreciate all the investigation efforts I see here.  Not sure there is much of a point.  I see a PR dud.  You cannot insult the intelligence of the American people with this silliness.

Jim Huber is also involved, but he is listed as the webmaster/admin.

but I doubt it

From their president regarding Roberts on July 20, 2005:    

"Washington, DC - Public Advocate President Eugene Delgaudio praised President Bush today for his selection of Judge John Roberts to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court."

Concerning Roberts Delgaudio said:

"The President has kept his word to the conservative electorate that put him into office to appoint an originalist who will not legislate from the bench but rather interpret and enforce the law."

Adding latter:

"Public Advocate plans to stand by this nominee as he will be inevitably attacked by these radical Senators and the far-left special interest groups that see the Court as the only way to advance their political agenda because of their rejection by the American voters."  See this press release.

Looks like their "plan" changed.    

"Je pense, donc je suis" was what the good philosopher said.  The Latin translation is given as "Cogito ergo sum", which is usually rendered in English as "I think, therefore I am".  A better English translation would be "I am thinking, therefore I exist".

Descartes did not say "Cognito ergo sum" in French or in Latin, which might be given in English as "I know, therefore I exist".

The rest of your analysis is spot on, worthy of a philosopher.

changed their support.  Apparantly after Roberts' work on the Romer case came to light.

From Byron York

This may help!

That was in very poor taste and I apologize to anyone I offended.

Or leave it up as a monument to my stupidity.

I did delete it, because it was not about the same man. Same last name, but different individual.

Though I'd argue it was on topic in a sick, demented sort of way.  Hopefully I was the only one who got the joke.

the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is actively opposing his nomination.  Go to http://hrc.org if you want to see it for yourself.

Anyone that HRC and NARAL can't live with is the best bet we're going to see.

The best name for the worst group.  I think Savage calls them "People for the Communist Way" or something like that.

This little group of homophobes wanted the media spotlight and they got it today by playing politics against a judicial nominee that mainstream, prominent conservative organizations are supporting. How very Ann Coulter of them....And any conservative group that cannot see that abandoning Roberts empowers and encourages them really needs to get their eyes checked. (Emphasis added)

As y'all likely know, I made much the same point this past week.  Grandstanding with the Roberts nomination only makes it that much more likely there will be snags with that nomination.  We don't need snags.  There is lots more work to do (replacing Rehnquist, Social Security reform, hopefully replacing Ginzburg and/or Stevens).  We need to get Roberts confirmed quickly, so we can regroup and move on to the next fight.

That nearly all posts are so eager in their support of this Souter in sheep's clothing.  The fact that Naral and the rest oppose him is not enough of a reason for support, they all opposed Souter as well.

As for the gratuitous Ann Coulter comment, well that's probably who Bush should have appointed instead, what's this place turned into?

Just another place where a bunch of PC Rinos congregate to pat themselves on the back.

See ya again later when all return to express shock (shock! I say) that Roberts is always voting with Souter.

I for one have a lot of questions about Roberts being a real conservative.  All of his pro-bono work, his reluctance to talk about the issues, the hold-back of documents by the WH...who's to say that the WH's reason for holding back info isn't because Roberts is too conservative, but too LIBERAL?

I have real doubts about Roberts, too.  If he truly was a conservative Catholic, he would never have helped with the case due to moral objections.  

And the word "homophobe" being thrown around makes this no better than a PC left-wing site.

due to "moral objections" then you're raising a big red flag as to whether he or any person with serious moral beliefs should be on the Court at all. In effect you are making the Left's very argument!

The fact that the guy does not let personal moral beliefs, or his church's dictats, direct his professional life is a strong point in his favor and is something we shoudl expect from all public offcials. And Supreme Court judges are after all not to legislate their personal beliefs from the Bench, and that's as true of conservative beliefs as it is of liberal beliefs.

What this scrutiny on Roberts seesm to be doing is dividing those who want a rightwing activist judge who will use the Court to further an agenda from those who sincerely do want a constructionist judge who will use the court only to rule on matters of constitutional propriety.

I doubt Bush would go out of his way to choose a liberal and then seek to hide the fact.

What I do suspect is that Roberts is more along the lines of a libertarian oriented originalist to some degree.

I am not all that troubled by the work on the Romer case-Roberts first and foremost is an attorney, and he has an excellent reputation for arguing good cases before various appeals courts, and has argued before the Supreme court more times than most attornies.

The fact that his firm took this case, and referred the lawyers to him for advice during the appeals proccess makes sense.  And I am not sure that this case is the be all, end all to his legal theories and philosophies.  He just doesn't strike me as the legislate from the bench type.  And unlike Souter who was a real unknown, Roberts has been in the Beltway legal stuff for years, and many in congress know him.

I just don't see a pig in a poke here.

1.  Everything I've heard about Roberts makes me comfortable with his nomination.  (FTR, I prefer textualist judges who understand the concept of judicial restraint.)
   
2.  Agreed on the NARAL ad.
   
3.  With respect to Robert's pro bono work, I do think it provides a window into his personal views.  I've done pro bono work for, among others, Lambda Legal Defense.  It was repeatedly made clear to me (as a BigLaw associate at my old firm) that I could turn down the work for any reason or no reason; moreover, a practicing lawyer frequently says "love to, but I'm swamped" to pro bono work that he or she really believes in.  I can only assume that Roberts, a partner at the time, had similar options available to him.  If he didn't like the work, he could easily decline it.
   
4.  That said, I don't know how much this reflects Roberts' beliefs as to the role of the Court in such matters; his contribution, after all, was merely six hours and he reportedly played Scalia.  And one can easily have a personal belief as to the rightness of a particular cause, but still believe that the cause should fail under current law.  Indeed, I have exactly that view with respect to the issue of gay marriage:  I'm in favor of allowing gay marriage, but I'm just as convinced that it would be unConstitutional to impost gay marriage via judicial decision.  It is a legislative issue.