Skip to comments.Roberts worked for gay rights activists
Posted on 08/04/2005 7:24:32 AM PDT by conserv13
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 private lawyer in Washington specializing in appellate work, Roberts helped represent the gay activists as part of his pro bono work at his law firm. He did not write the legal briefs or argue the case before the high court; he was instrumental in reviewing the filings and preparing oral arguments, several lawyers intimately involved in the case said.
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
Roberts hit piece.
He also worked for Democrats. What does it matter?
Hit piece? Are you saying that the facts are wrong?
Pro-Bono the gay lobby is one of the richest groups in the country. why Pro-bono?
All Roberts may have done is to assist, perhaps answer a few questions, a co-worker. Standard in any Law office!
And the problem is.....?
it doesn't but it gives Coulter fans and the tin foil crew something to scream about.
Oh no. Someone with his stature wouldn't have to take on a pro-bono project like this unless he wanted to. Damn.
The problem is, that the Supreme Court invented a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy.
I predict, when Roberts is confirmed, that some on FR have a Schiavo type meltdown for approximately a week or so.
I'll pop the popcorn.
How about opening the Tinfoil Hat Online Pharmacy instead? Could make a fortune selling Prozac and Paxil to those having a meltdown. ;-)
I am going to do that!!!!
No, I'm saying this is a hit piece.
Is that good or bad?
You seem to think the lack of resistance from the Democrats is a good sign. He's their dream come true if this is any indication.
It has nothing to do with tin foil. It's called critical analysis.
right they aren't resisting because they can't and there IS a difference in Borking a Supreme Court nominee rather than an appellate court nominee.
This is a non issue.
Otherwise, I refer you to my tagline.
It's just a hit piece.
No, the meltdown will occur when men and women can serve openly gay in the military.
Arguing against discrimination is a lot different than arguing for special rights. Unless you think gays have no rights at all.
Also..this will make him an Honorary Citizen of
Massachusetts....John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and Barney
Frank will now endorse him...but don't bet on it?? Jake
As I posted on another thread about this:
I see from a number of the posts on this thread that the left's smear tactic campaign is working.
Has anybody asked him why he did it? Has anybody done research on the case? Maybe there was some actual discrimination going on, above and beyond what the homos usually complain about? Has anybody asked him if he thought it was a mistake?
You people sure are quick to act on this, aren't you.
You haven't been around long, have you? They have more money dedicated to digging up trash than you and I will make in our lifetimes. He didn't just roll out of law school. He may not have a "federal" paper trail, but the left knows what he had for breakfast in 1987 by now.
And if it IS about not having a paper trail, on what criterion, exactly, did the president nominate him?
Arguing it pro bono as a professed Catholic is entirely significant.
DON THE TINFOIL!!!
give me a break. As I said, this site is headed for a few people to have meltdowns while the rest of us laugh our @$$e$ off at you.
Go light on the salt, please.
butter on your popcorn?
Invest in tin foil futures..
yep that and Prozac :)
Divide and Conquer
I don't agree. Gays should not have special rights ... but they have the rights that all Americans have. I don't see a problem.
Lawyers don't take only cases they're ideologically aligned with. This means nothing.
A tad, please.
Hit piece - look at the subject of the cae, not the "Gay" issue. It was a discrimination case straight and simple. Protecting citizens' rights is a good thing in a Judge even though some citizens happen to practice what I consider to be abominations. If he was prjudicial in this, he would be unfit. Many are trying to make it seem as if he did pro-bono work because the clients were homosexual, rather than the real issue of the case.
If I see a group of folks beating up a person just because they don't like that person, I will do my best to stop the aggressors, no matter what I may think of the victim.
was he even ON the case?
for all we know the only thing he did was correct language.
Was his name on the brief?
If his name was not on the brief, then he was not the attorny for the case. The help given could have been as much as a rewrite or as little as lending a pencil.
IF Roberts supported Romer he should not have been appointed to the court by a conservative President. Romer is simply more of the same ole same ole, taking cultural issues out of the public square and letting the gods on the becnch decide. I hope to hell Roberts doesn't have that mindset.
Another fishing expedition?
Do you think that any of this will stick?
If, as a private attorney, he worked to help homosexual activists use the legal system to destroy the moral fabric of this country, yes that is a problem. If he does not support using the legal system to further the homosexual agenda then it is not a problem.
We will soon be hearing from the "I'm never voting Republican again" crowd that has left the Party more times than Ali and Jordan have retired put together.
On what do you base your opinion of John Roberts? Because either there's a paper trail or there isn't.
We know he supports Roe v. Wade as precedent and "settled law".
We know he did pro bono work for the gay lobby.
We know he's "open-minded".
We know the press is treading VERY lightly on his toes.
Wow - when you see light on the horizon in the east, do you think it's sunrise or sunset?
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
One of several articles about John Roberts' pro bono work on behalf of "gay" rights activist clients. I'll find one or two more representative articles just so you can figure out what it all means.
What it means to me is that (most, not all, not all) lawyers are similar to prostitutes. Here's a man who, it seems obvious to me, is a very moral, upright, right thinking man. But, when he worked in a law office, he had to do his master's bidding. He worked, he earned money, he did what he was told. Unless he volunteered for this particular case because he thought it was such a good cause...
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
believe what you want to believe...
personally, the guy is able to put aside his personal feelings for a client. That also means he probably puts aside his political leanings for the Constitution.
One generally translates to the other. It certainly did in the cases of Thomas and Scalia.