Posted on 08/04/2005 3:51:18 AM PDT by joeu
It also matters if he filed a Notice of Appearance as an official indication he was on the case.
BTW, what kind of lawyer head a "pro bono department"?
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..
Lack of opposition from the left? I don't think so. They're just getting warmed up.
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.
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.
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??
Too early to say...
Many questions from both-sides-of-the-aisle
at the confirmation hearings will give a much better read
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.
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...
Sean Hannity is discussing this right now.
Maybe you're right. Did Souter ever volunteer his time or services to aid homosexual rights activists?
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.