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 ...
lol.......the way they tell it.....yes.
The lefties have gone mad. I must go check out their site for a good laugh.
If you didn't know the news you are not important.
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.
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?
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.)
Quoting from the article:
"Roberts helped represent the gay activists as part of his law firm's pro bono work."
Man, I hope Ann isn't right.
I'd like all his records and papers released. This drip, drip, drip is ridiculous.
Yeah...he apparently fought for the WRONG client.
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.
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.
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?).
Pro bono ( prō bō ' nō ) 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.
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.
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!
(( ping ))
Why, yes, he was.
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.