Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Roberts Worked on Behalf of Gay Activists
Los Angeles Times ^ | August 3, 2005 | Richard A. Serrano

Posted on 08/03/2005 9:46:32 PM PDT by RWR8189

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. worked behind the scenes for a coalition of gay-rights activists, and his legal expertise helped them persuade the Supreme Court to issue a landmark 1996 ruling protecting people against discrimination because of their sexual orientation.

Then a lawyer specializing in appellate work, the conservative Roberts helped represent the gay activists as part of his law firm's pro bono work. While he did not write the legal briefs or argue the case before the Supreme court, he was instrumental in reviewing the filings and preparing oral arguments, according to several lawyers intimately involved in the case.

The coalition won its case, 6-3, in what gay activists described at the time as the movement's most important legal victory. The three dissenting justices were those to whom Roberts is frequently likened for their conservative ideology -- Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Roberts' role working on behalf of gay activists, whose cause is anathema to many conservatives, appears to illustrate his allegiance to the credo of the legal profession: to zealously represent the interests of the client, whoever it might be.

There is no other record of Roberts being involved in gay-rights cases that would suggest his position on such issues. He has stressed, however, that a client's views are not necessarily shared by the lawyer who argues on his or her behalf.

The lawyer who asked for his help on the case, Walter A. Smith Jr., then-head of the pro bono department at Hogan & Hartson, said Roberts didn't hesitate.

"He said, `Let's do it.' And it's illustrative of his open-mindedness, his fair-mindedness. He did a brilliant job," Smith said.

Roberts did not mention his work on the gay-rights case in his 67-page response to a Senate

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: gayrights; greatafaglover; homosexualagenda; johnroberts; roberts; romervevans; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-92 next last
Roberts as a lawyer fought for his client...imagine that?
1 posted on 08/03/2005 9:46:33 PM PDT by RWR8189
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

Awe Geez, not this $#!+ again ...


2 posted on 08/03/2005 9:47:50 PM PDT by 11th_VA (BORDER SECURITY NOT SOCIAL SECURITY - I'm voting 3rd Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

The question is, why did he take the case? I'm not going to read to much into it as yet, considering it's from the MSM. But if the facts are true, it does make me think Ann Coulter was on to something about him being a closet liberal.


3 posted on 08/03/2005 9:49:06 PM PDT by balch3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

Why would a conservative do work to advance leftism?


4 posted on 08/03/2005 9:50:21 PM PDT by k2blader (Hic sunt dracones..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balch3

Then he's sure spent a lot of time clerking for conservative justices, and working in Republican administrations for much of his adult life hiding that fact.


5 posted on 08/03/2005 9:51:59 PM PDT by RWR8189 (I Will Sit on My Hands in 2008 Instead of Voting for McCain)(No Money for the NRSC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: balch3
But, you see, it's perfectly fine because "that's what lawyers do--work for their clients".

Stop being so judgmental.

< /sarc >
6 posted on 08/03/2005 9:52:00 PM PDT by k2blader (Hic sunt dracones..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
Then a lawyer specializing in appellate work, the conservative Roberts helped represent the gay activists as part of his law firm's pro bono work. While he did not write the legal briefs or argue the case before the Supreme court, he was instrumental in reviewing the filings and preparing oral arguments, according to several lawyers intimately involved in the case.

This is it!!!! EXPLOSIVE!!!!! His firm was required to do pro bono work, and (choke!) did it! And as an employee of the firm, Roberts worked for a client!

I LOVE how the left uses the word GAY as a weapon to try to split GOP support for a judge who, when employed as a lawyer, worked as a lawyer. The hypocrisy of those who are always bitching about gays being stigmatized using gays to stigmatize is just beautiful.

7 posted on 08/03/2005 9:53:31 PM PDT by Dr.Hilarious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

next, he'll be bunking with Souter ... (/sarcasm)


8 posted on 08/03/2005 9:54:39 PM PDT by 11th_VA (BORDER SECURITY NOT SOCIAL SECURITY - I'm voting 3rd Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
"John G. Roberts Jr. worked behind the scenes for a coalition of gay-rights activists

So what?

9 posted on 08/03/2005 9:54:45 PM PDT by dano1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: everyone

This is bad news. The issue was too important to treat as a purely professional matter. Unless the story is badly wrong, we now have our first piece of genuinely disturbing news about Roberts. When the Rats praise a Republican, there's almost always a reason.

We still have to support the guy, and we can still hope that he'll be with us 90 percent of the time. But even a justice who is 10 percent wrong can do a lot of damage.


10 posted on 08/03/2005 9:55:08 PM PDT by California Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
There is no other record of Roberts being involved in gay-rights cases that would suggest his position on such issues.

Don't worry, doing his job this once is enough for the Ann Coulter Was Right! crowd.

11 posted on 08/03/2005 9:55:50 PM PDT by Dr.Hilarious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: California Patriot
The issue was too important to treat as a purely professional matter.

Exactly.

12 posted on 08/03/2005 9:55:53 PM PDT by k2blader (Hic sunt dracones..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: balch3
"Then a lawyer specializing in appellate work, the conservative Roberts helped represent the gay activists as part of his law firm's pro bono work. While he did not write the legal briefs or argue the case before the Supreme court, he was instrumental in reviewing the filings and preparing oral arguments, according to several lawyers intimately involved in the case."

Oh my..... You mean to to;ll me that John Roberts did what he was told when his boss's told him to do some pro bono work.... I'm Shocked... Shocked I tell ya

This is nothing but an attempt by the left to discredit him among the Conservative Base

13 posted on 08/03/2005 9:55:58 PM PDT by MJY1288 (Whenever a Liberal is Speaking on the Senate Floor, Al-Jazeera Breaks in and Covers it LIVE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Hilarious

It's one thing to be hired to represent a client. It's another to do volunteer work for free. That infers you believe the client's cause is worthy.

Weren't there any conservative organizations that needed free legal representation?


14 posted on 08/03/2005 9:57:40 PM PDT by balch3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

I think it's a good thing that a lawyer defends zeaously his client. But I also think that lawyers should have ethics and not take cases they don't believe in. In my opinion, we all have to do what we can and use our abilities in all order of things to make this society a better place. Not doing so is lack of ethics.


15 posted on 08/03/2005 9:58:40 PM PDT by angelanddevil2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288

That's exactly what it is. As you can see from some of the posts here, it is working.


16 posted on 08/03/2005 10:00:41 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: balch3
It's one thing to be hired to represent a client. It's another to do volunteer work for free. That infers you believe the client's cause is worthy.

Where do you get that from? The job had to be done, he did it.

Weren't there any conservative organizations that needed free legal representation?

Apparently not. I haven't seen anything stating he passed up working on some conservative group's case for this. And I imagine it is just what a good employee does--work on a pro bono job.

17 posted on 08/03/2005 10:01:03 PM PDT by Dr.Hilarious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288

I am suspicious but not enough to reject roberts.

When it comes to this type of work, you do not HAVE to do something that objects your conscience. If he worked for a megafirm with hundreds of lawyers this does not mean much but do not underestimate the value of collaberation.

If this is an indication of how he would rule on homosexual marriage, then it is a dealbreaker. As a lawyer he should already KNOW that homosexuals already have access to cohabitation and estate planning. (even just making a deed "tenancy by the entireties" produces right now what homosexuals claim they don't have)


18 posted on 08/03/2005 10:01:18 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

If this article is true, why are the Lefty 'RATS working so hard to keep Roberts from being confirmed? The MSM wants Republicans to start whining about Roberts so they can use Republicans whining about Roberts in their ads and on talk shows.


19 posted on 08/03/2005 10:03:04 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (We did not lose in Vietnam. We left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: angelanddevil2

Maybe he believes gays shouldn't be discriminated against. I don't think that's some radical out there concept that means he's unfit for the court. I don't know the full details of the case so I can't say how I feel about this particular situation, but I feel better about him doing this than fighting FOR discrimination against gays. I can hate their agenda, fight against their trying to indoctrinate kids in schools, and all that, without calling for them to be fired just because they do something in their own homes. Oh, right, that makes me a liberal to some around here.


20 posted on 08/03/2005 10:04:16 PM PDT by Dr.Hilarious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: 11th_VA

lol.......the way they tell it.....yes.

The lefties have gone mad. I must go check out their site for a good laugh.


21 posted on 08/03/2005 10:06:48 PM PDT by Shortstop7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: California Patriot

If you didn't know the news you are not important.


22 posted on 08/03/2005 10:08:08 PM PDT by fatima (Just for our guys and girls,Thank you all the Military .Prayers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat; holdonnow
The people that know him, back him, and I do not consider Mark Levin as a person who I should question, Mark says Roberts is a solid choice, and all this chatter is nothing but Liberal Pap in my humble opinion
23 posted on 08/03/2005 10:09:01 PM PDT by MJY1288 (Whenever a Liberal is Speaking on the Senate Floor, Al-Jazeera Breaks in and Covers it LIVE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: balch3
"But if the facts are true, it does make me think Ann Coulter was on to something about him being a closet liberal."

She said a lot; but never said he was a closet Liberal. . .or perhaps I just missed that observation.

If you have read Robert's statements. . .his philosophy; re the Law and the Constitution; you cannot attribute his decisions; to 'closet Liberalism' but rather to a committed interpretation of our Constitution.

Anne Coulter is good; but she is not political guru. . .and regardless of her interpretations; there is more than enough information re Roberts, to make a fair decision.

IMHO. ..we could not hope for a better Supreme Court Justice.

24 posted on 08/03/2005 10:12:22 PM PDT by cricket (a picture is worth a thousand words; but I don't have a picture. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

Reading the article again I find this is the one such case he's worked on, and he was a minor figure in it. If that makes him unsuitable as a Republican's choice for the court, then I give up. Ronald Reagan himself signed a law liberalizing abortion law in California when governor, and he's rightly considered a conservative icon; Roberts does research on a single pro-bono case and now he's under suspicion?


25 posted on 08/03/2005 10:12:48 PM PDT by Dr.Hilarious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat
What I am shocked about is Ann Coulter's very loud objection to the Roberts nomination. She says she doesn't know much about him., but as smart as Ann is, you would think she would ask those who do kn ow him. I'm sure Mark (F. Lee) Levin would be more than willing to share what he knows about Roberts
26 posted on 08/03/2005 10:14:06 PM PDT by MJY1288 (Whenever a Liberal is Speaking on the Senate Floor, Al-Jazeera Breaks in and Covers it LIVE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: cricket

Very well stated. If this is how far the left has to dig for SOMEthing on him, he's aces with me. (And Levin, who's my go-to guy on this, as opposed to Coulter. I love her, but she's swerving into Savage territory on this one.)


27 posted on 08/03/2005 10:14:29 PM PDT by Dr.Hilarious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: balch3
The question is, why did he take the case?

Quoting from the article:
"Roberts helped represent the gay activists as part of his law firm's pro bono work."

28 posted on 08/03/2005 10:14:54 PM PDT by Prime Choice (Thanks to the Leftists, yesterday's deviants are today's "alternate lifestyles.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

Man, I hope Ann isn't right.


29 posted on 08/03/2005 10:14:54 PM PDT by ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: California Patriot

I'd like all his records and papers released. This drip, drip, drip is ridiculous.


30 posted on 08/03/2005 10:17:10 PM PDT by StarSpangled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
Roberts as a lawyer fought for his client...imagine that

Yeah...he apparently fought for the WRONG client.

31 posted on 08/03/2005 10:19:01 PM PDT by tame (Are you willing to be as SHAMELESS for the truth as leftists are for a lie?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
I've done a fair share of reading about Roberts past and I have not found anything that would make me worry about him other than his short time on the bench. Roberts is not a small time Judge, nor a small time Litigator. The more I hear about his past, the more I like him
32 posted on 08/03/2005 10:19:06 PM PDT by MJY1288 (Whenever a Liberal is Speaking on the Senate Floor, Al-Jazeera Breaks in and Covers it LIVE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
This same LA Slimes in today's rag said Roberts was against voting rights for black people in Mississippi.

The reasoning was he didn't support some sort of Lani Guinar type majority vote nullification to entitle certain designated populations to have extra votes.

33 posted on 08/03/2005 10:22:27 PM PDT by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice

What if it had been an abortionist? Would he still have taken the case? Why or why not? Does he consider the homosexual agenda any less dangerous to our moral fiber than abortion? I'm not withdrawing support from the guy yet, but these are some questions I'd like answers to.


34 posted on 08/03/2005 10:22:39 PM PDT by balch3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Hilarious

I don't think that makes you a liberal. I agree with you. I fight against their agenda to be advanced, but we cannot fire them because they are gays. It's true that everybody has the right to do in their bedrooms what they want. The problem is when it goes OUT of their bedrooms and get to the public (including children and schools). At this point I don't think there is any discrimination. At this point they are advancing their agenda. They already won a lot of ground. I have no idea how I will raise my child to balance it out. That's why, without reading this specific case, I suspect it was not against discrimation. You know how consider everything discriminatory (like a woman saying "I am married to a wonderful man". She should say "I am married to a wonderful person". You know what happened to Will Smith's wife, right?).


35 posted on 08/03/2005 10:24:50 PM PDT by angelanddevil2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
Then a lawyer specializing in appellate work, the conservative Roberts helped represent the gay activists as part of his law firm's pro bono work.

Pro bono ( pr&#333; b&#333; ' n&#333; ) adj. Done without compensation for the public good

Roberts and his firm were a believer in the cause.

Let's stop the idiotic denial and admit this guy quite possibly isn't an originalist and potentially another David Souter or Sandra Day O'Connor.

There is nothing originalist about overturning sodomy laws which the originalists all supported.

36 posted on 08/03/2005 10:25:04 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tame
Yeah...he apparently fought for the WRONG client.

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV... but I do have 2 lawyers in the family, and my impression is that you do not get to pick all your own clients as an associate, or even as a junior partner. The article says he was asked to help, and he did. He did not actively seek the client, but when given the assignment, he devoted himself fully to representing the client. That makes him a man of integrity. The fact that they won the case is just another testament to the man's intellect and legal brilliance.

37 posted on 08/03/2005 10:25:41 PM PDT by CA Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky
Roberts and his firm were a believer in the cause.

This is a non-sequiter. His firm may have believed in the cause - there is nothing to indicate his beliefs on the matter one way or another.

Let's stop the idiotic denial and admit this guy quite possibly isn't an originalist and potentially another David Souter or Sandra Day O'Connor.

I'm sure you have been spouting the same line even before you knew who the nominee would be, so I won't waste effort trying to convince you otherwise. You'd better get back under the bed, the sky is falling again!

38 posted on 08/03/2005 10:30:07 PM PDT by CA Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Ann Coulter

(( ping ))


39 posted on 08/03/2005 10:30:32 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CA Conservative
I'm sure you have been spouting the same line even before you knew who the nominee would be,

Why, yes, he was.

40 posted on 08/03/2005 10:35:27 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: balch3

Why are you speaking as if it was his decision to take the case?


41 posted on 08/03/2005 10:36:29 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
Then a lawyer specializing in appellate work, the conservative Roberts helped represent the gay activists as part of his law firm's pro bono work.

My question is how do gay activists qualify for pro bono assistance? I'm always told that gays are affluent and that advertisers are always targeting them, etc. because of their money. Here they got free legal help from a big time Washington DC law firm.

42 posted on 08/03/2005 10:37:03 PM PDT by Cowboy Bob (Liberalism cannot survive in a free and open society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288; All; jwalsh07

"The generally accepted notion that the court can only hear roughly 150 cases each term gives the same sense of reassurance as the adjournment of the court in July, when we know the Constitution is safe for the summer," he quipped. John Roberts circa April 1983


16 posted on 07/27/2005 6:38:17 PM CDT by jwalsh07


43 posted on 08/03/2005 10:38:26 PM PDT by onyx (North is a direction. South is a way of life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: everyone

Some conservative commentators are not smart enough to believe about something this complicated. But I think Mark Levin is. However, I'm still disturbed by the fact that Roberts took this gay-rights case. It doesn't tell us what he really believes about the issue, or even the courts' role in it. But it does suggest that he's very cautious, at best, about drawing lines in the sand if he thinks it would hurt his career.


44 posted on 08/03/2005 10:44:46 PM PDT by California Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

Oh shit!

Don't tell Anne.


45 posted on 08/03/2005 10:45:30 PM PDT by mercy (never again a patsy for Bill Gates - spyware and viri free for over a year now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: California Patriot
But it does suggest that he's very cautious, at best, about drawing lines in the sand if he thinks it would hurt his career.

Next he'll be looking to build a "legacy" as one of the "philosopher kings". I think Coulter has him pegged as another Souter.

46 posted on 08/03/2005 10:51:20 PM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: balch3
What if it had been an abortionist? Would he still have taken the case? Why or why not?

Beats me. Why don't you ask him?

47 posted on 08/03/2005 11:15:35 PM PDT by Prime Choice (Thanks to the Leftists, yesterday's deviants are today's "alternate lifestyles.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: All

Divide and conquer???


48 posted on 08/03/2005 11:16:19 PM PDT by ottersnot (Kill a commie for your mommie....Johnnie Ramone. American Rocker and patriot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

MSM is blowing things out of proportion again.

IF you read the rest of the article, you find he gave them a couple of pieces of general advice and did a dry run with them, in preparation. That's it.


The lead attorney in the case went to Roberts, and she is recounting what he said and did:

"He said you have to be able to count and know where your votes are coming from. And the other was that you absolutely have to be on top of why and where and how the state court had ruled in this case," Dubofsky said.

She said Roberts served on a moot court panel as they prepared for oral arguments in the case, taking the role of a Scalia-like justice in peppering her with tough questions. And when Dubofsky appeared before the justices, Scalia did indeed demand specific legal citations from the lower court ruling. "I had it right there at my fingertips," she said.

Dubofsky said Roberts helped her form the argument that the initiative was illegal because it violated the "equal protections" clause of the Constitution."


49 posted on 08/03/2005 11:27:19 PM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tame

Hi tame. So it comes to this, it seems. "Conservatives" supporting the homoactivist agenda..


50 posted on 08/04/2005 12:06:34 AM PDT by k2blader (Hic sunt dracones..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-92 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson