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

Skip to comments.

Roberts helped gay-rights activists win landmark ruling
Los Angeles Times ^ | August 4, 2005 | Richard A. Serrano

Posted on 08/04/2005 3:51:18 AM PDT by joeu

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.

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; johnroberts; romervevans; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 last
To: justshutupandtakeit

It also matters if he filed a Notice of Appearance as an official indication he was on the case.


41 posted on 08/04/2005 6:43:09 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign
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 did not hesitate.

BTW, what kind of lawyer head a "pro bono department"?

42 posted on 08/04/2005 6:44:25 AM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Thanks for posting that. It occurred to me that this story might be bogus but it might not. If he didn't actually help overturn the Colorado referendum, his defenders will be hitting the conservative press soon.
43 posted on 08/04/2005 6:46:51 AM PDT by Varda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: unlearner

sad but very true ..the fight goes on ..but we must fight within the constitution and through our republic's systems to change both the minds and hearts of the secularists..sodomy is not a life style it is LUST..but we cannot trample our system because we are in the right on this issue..


44 posted on 08/04/2005 6:47:20 AM PDT by ConsentofGoverned (A sucker is born every minute..what are the voters?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever

Lack of opposition from the left? I don't think so. They're just getting warmed up.


45 posted on 08/04/2005 6:48:20 AM PDT by Trust but Verify (Get over yourselves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ConsentofGoverned

I'm a Roberts supporter but this is a little worrisome. The court's ruling in this case was horrendous, and could set the precedent for overturning all the gay "marriage" bans that have been enacted by state voters recently.

Several years ago, Colorado voters approved a state constitutional amendment barring the enactment of so-called gay rights laws in their state. The reason for this was that politicians kept passing (or trying to pass) these laws despite public opposition to them. We're seeing a similar thing in California right now where some politicians are trying to engineer gay "marriage" in that state even though voters passed a law banning it.

But in Colorado the voters had not yet acted, so they did so. They approved the amendment banning gay rights laws on a state referendum. By a 6-3 majority, joined in by Justices Kennedy & O'Connor, the court ruled that the amendment was unconstitutional. The reasoning was spurious, and could be used to ban just about any law or amendment the liberals don't like. They argued that an amendment to the state constitution banning gay rights ordinances deprived gays of "equal protection" since they couldn't pass such laws without first repealing the aforementioned amendment. So the presence of the amendment constituted an additional barrier for gays to overcome that, for example, supporters of a law banning discrimination against the elderly wouldn't face.

But that's a ridiculous argument. By definition a constitutional amendment is a barrier. Opponents of free speech, for instance, would have to repeal the first amendment before they could pass their desired laws. The 15th amendment bans racial discrimination in voting. Gender discrimination in voting wasn't banned until many years later via the 19th amendment. But that doesn't mean that in the meantime the 15th amendment was unconstitutional since it placed a barrier on those who would deny blacks the vote while not placing such a barrier on those who would deny women the vote.

The irony of all this is that judicial fiats, which this ruling was, impose barriers on the democratic process just as constitutional amendments do, only WITHOUT public participation in the process. Opponents of abortion, as an example, are denied the ability to pass a ban on abortion because of Roe vs. Wade. The same would be true if there was a legitimately ratified constitutional amendment banning anti-abortion laws, but at least that would have been enacted via legitimate processes.

The Romer vs. Evans case essentially gives the court carte blanche to void any state constitutional amendment they don't like on the grounds that the very presence of the amendment imposes a barrier on those who want to enact laws violating it. It's worrisome if Roberts was involved in this. I hope there's a good explanation.


46 posted on 08/04/2005 6:57:55 AM PDT by puroresu (Conservatism is an observation; Liberalism is an ideology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever
The lack of opposition on the left should send a chill down your spine.

well, actually it has been a feature of interest. Thanks for reminding me. I posted elsewhere about how odd it was that the left was falling in line behind him. I got caught up in the rest of my life and forgot. I'm not too worried -- I still don't believe the headlines as presented.

There seems to be campaign to hard sell this guy to the left, with the complicity of their leadership. I'm sure a deal was done somewhere -- probably Hillary given the white house or something.

47 posted on 08/04/2005 6:58:49 AM PDT by the invisib1e hand (In Honor of Terri Schiavo. *check my FReeppage for the link* Let it load and have the sound on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: puroresu
very good post- I guess thats why so many of us feel SCOTUS is the last stand against the destruction of the republic - but I am hopeful that SCOTUS itself is controlled by return to the original intent of the founding documents..marberry be damned.
48 posted on 08/04/2005 7:01:14 AM PDT by ConsentofGoverned (A sucker is born every minute..what are the voters?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit

Wasn't he just a wee tad disingenuous NOT to list one of the major pro bono cases he was involved in, a case that produced a major victory for the gay agenda, overturned a popular referendum, and where Rhenquist, Scalia, and Thomas all dissented? Shouldn't this cause all of us a bit of discomfiture with his candidacy??


49 posted on 08/04/2005 7:01:44 AM PDT by libstripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: joeu

Too early to say...

Many questions from both-sides-of-the-aisle

at the confirmation hearings will give a much better read


50 posted on 08/04/2005 8:30:13 AM PDT by calrepublic2005
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joeu

Roberts was the the appellate supervisor at Hogan and Harston. He was obligated to check the work of the underling lawyers involved in the case.


51 posted on 08/04/2005 8:32:35 AM PDT by RGSpincich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog
Aw, come on, Dog, Roberts is done--I mean, this is bad! As I posted last night, it's almost as bad as, say, expanding abortion laws while you're governor of California! No one who's a real conservative would do something like that, either. ;)

We MUST keep them homasexuls out in the street, after all, and from what I'm reading, this guy actually had a meeting or two with the clients and told 'em "Stand up straight when you're speaking to the justices." He's practically the creator of ALL gay rights stuff in this country! I mean, look at all that other evidence of his being pro-gay, all that tons of evidence...I'm sure it's around here somewhere, hold on...

52 posted on 08/04/2005 9:35:07 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 ("The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they'll be when you kill them."-Wm. Clayton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RGSpincich

Sean Hannity is discussing this right now.


53 posted on 08/04/2005 12:22:07 PM PDT by clawrence3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Dog

Maybe you're right. Did Souter ever volunteer his time or services to aid homosexual rights activists?


54 posted on 08/04/2005 9:30:10 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 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