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 ...
Yep.
I can understand people being snakebitten. Given recent history, it's only natural. But nitpicking on EVERY thing this guy has done in his career strikes me as REALLY counter productive.
Scalia has stated that the Constitution does not address the issue of abortion and thus it should be within state powers to legislate it.
"Romer gutted Bowers de facto."
I disagree. They were about completely different issues.
Personally, like us, he abhors it.
You can disagree all you want but Lawrence v Texas agrees with me. Bowers was rendered inoperative by Romer, stare decisis be damned.
I hope that you are wrong. But since I am just like a small ant, knowing nothing but what little I managed to scan on FR, what do I know?
My personal POV is that the system in general is so FUBAR that nothing will turn it around/save it other than divine intervetion of one sort or another. And I mean more than just the SCOTUS, obviously.
Just because the fight looks hopeless sometimes doesn't mean we shouldn't fight with every ounce of our strength.
Come on and say what you mean John McCain. You mean the conservatives? Great RINO post.
He supervised the appellate division at Hogan and Hartson at the time. He probably had an obligation to the firm to check the briefs for sound law.
With all due respect, I don't think that's a bad thing.
By all accounts, Roberts respects the Constitution. I believe I've read that he's a member of the Federalist society and that his wife belongs to a pro-life group. I think these things are a better indication of how he will vote in the future than who happened to pay his law firm for assistance in a particular case.
Looks like he just did a favor for a fellow attorney and reviewed a case of his. There is nothing to this at all.
Whoa.
Hi, Delphi.
I'm nervous over Roberts. Coulter is no person's dummy, and she could be overly cautious, but her logic is solid.
I think so too. It's amazing how viciously conservatives can turn on each other.
And now I think I'll give in to my son's pleading, let him have the pc, and in that way, stick to my original resolution not to get involved in the hysteria, LOL!!!
"I think attorneys should do their job period, just like everybody else. It's the pro bono thing that bothers me a bit. Lawyers, I would think as a rule (but I could be wrong here), only accept pro bono constitutional cases when they agree with the desired outcome. No?"
Maybe? I don't really know. I know people do pro bono criminal defense work not because they approve of the crime or even think the defendant is innocent. They simply think the defendant is entitled to good representation.
All I know is that this morning's story really provides no information with which to make any kind of decision and yet it seems that many are ready to do so. I'll wait and see.
He was asked by the firm's pro bono head to give advice to counsel for Romer when the matter was accepted for review by the SCOTUS.
He spent an afternoon or so analyzing the legal issues and telling her what the most important arguments to make were, and also giving her guidance on how to argue before the court - general stuff like knowing where your votes were coming from and such.
Given that most of the great lawyers are called upon at various points in their career to give advice on how to argue a certain point, none of this surprises me one bit. He's probably the foremost SCOTUS expert in the nation. He was willing to provide his expertise to another lawyer in an important case, most likely because his firm's pro bono head (and his partner) wanted him to, but was not willing (nor called upon) to sign his name to any filings or to make any official appearances.
Since this is the first time I've heard of it (he kept it secret and this has only come out since the person he helped has been blabbing to the media about his involvement), my initial reaction might be off but I don't see much to be concerned about here. He played devil's advocate off the record at worst.
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.