Roberts worked for gay rights activists

The Baltimore Sun ^ | 8/4/05 | Richard Serrano

[Antoninus]

whatever man...

Great attitude. The courts are killing us--steamrolling the will of the people using power never granted to them by the Constitution. We desperately need good originalist conservatives on there--not "imaginary rights" pro-bono lawyers. And all you can say is "whatever man."

[samantha]

It looks good for any Lawyer that is ambitious and wants to get ahead to do pro bono cases, it pads his resume',and impresses their bosses. It is also what most Catholics are taught, fight for the underdog. I don't want "gay" marriage and special rights for "gays",but by the same token I do not want to see anyone discriminated against. People love to pick on a lot of "gays: because they do perverse, strange things, especially during those really sick Parades. They think it is normal to cut the butt cheeks out of their cutoff jeans and prance down the street like that.

[jude24]

Roberts, and Romer v. Evans was right. I just pulled it up and re-read it. Colorado's Amendment 2 didn't just say that homosexuals were on an equal plane with everyone else; it said that homosexuals could not have any "claim of discrimination." It allowed all persons, public and private, in the State of Colorado to discriminate against homosexuals. This is a facial violation of the 14th Amendment.

[republicofdavis]

"You can disagree all you want"

Thank you, I will. Bowers was about a fundamental right to homosexual sodomy. Romer had nothing to do with that. It It was a wrong decision but it did not overrule Bowers. The Lawrence decision differed from Bowers only based on a change in personnel. They did not need Romer to overrule Bowers. They just had to want to do it.

I'm sure they cited Romer because that's what they do. But that doesn't support your original point that Romer de facto overruled Bowers.

[antiRepublicrat]

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

Or as a favor to a fellow attorney doing work in a firm's pro bono office who needed some advice and review about going before the Supreme Court. This is so incredibly a non-issue, a effort from the left to get the right to turn on Roberts. Don't get suckered.

[em2vn]

I don't understand a word of that mess that you posted;nor,do I think you are anything but a RINO who would find fault with Laura Ingram and any conservative who expects the President to appoint a conservative to the Supreme Court.

[proud American in Canada]

Just to get all the information together, here are the two other threads on this. Yours, so far, has the most posts; the second link contains the full text of the article.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1456673/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1456673/posts

[republicofdavis]

"We desperately need good originalist conservatives on there--not "imaginary rights" pro-bono lawyers. And all you can say is "whatever man.""

You're right that we need this but you're overreacting to this story.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[libsl]

Coulter's shtick is to kick against the pricks. I think she feels somebody's got to do it just to raise the questions.

[MikefromOhio]

LOL

have a good one

[MikefromOhio]

I don't understand a word of that mess that you posted;nor,do I think you are anything but a RINO who would find fault with Laura Ingram and any conservative who expects the President to appoint a conservative to the Supreme Court.

ohhh I got called a RINO!!! woohoo!! My day is now a happy one!!

Seriously get a grip.

[proud American in Canada]

You too, Mike. :)

[MikefromOhio]

and his past work is an indication of ANYTHING that he may rule on???

It doesn't matter what argument I bring to the table, you have already made your mind up.

So I said whatever man.

Now remember, I have Prozac, 2 for 1 sale is ongoing...

[Kryptonite]

No, Romer is wrong. People in this country have had the right to discriminate against others based on sexual orientation since the days the USA was founded.

Many states - nearly all of them - passed legislation which prohibited discrimination on the basis of age, race, gender, religious affiliation, and marital status - but a few municipalities in Colorado thought it was their prerogative to include sexual orientation as a basis upon which to pass anti-discrimination laws.

If the local municipalities had the right to pass those laws/ordinances, the state certainly had the right to say no to them, through undisputedly correct political processes.

Reading a right to equal protection based on sexual orientation into the Constitution is a recipe for disaster, and Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist are the only ones up there that know it right now. Next will come polygamists, threesomes, pedophiles and any other group of sexual deviants. They all logically follow once sexual orientation serves as a basis for a federal civil right.

[Antoninus]

It is also what most Catholics are taught, fight for the underdog. I don't want "gay" marriage and special rights for "gays",but by the same token I do not want to see anyone discriminated against.

That's a nice platitude. However, Catholics are urged to avoid any *unjust* discrimination with regard to people with homosexual inclinations. There is, however, *just* discrimination that is perfectly valid.

For example, it is perfectly valid for Catholic seminaries to reject individuals based on their homosexual inclinations--would that they had done so with greater vigor throughout the 1960s through the 1990s. There is a Vatican directive from 1961 (unheeded by most American and European dioceses, unfortunately) that ordered that homosexually inclined individuals should not be considered for the priesthood.

It is equally valid to reject a person who has homosexual tendencies if you're renting a room in your home, particularly if you have small children in the house.

It is not only valid but morally obigatory to exclude those with homosexual inclinations from adopting children.

Unjust forms of discrimination would be, for example, refusing to care for an AIDS patient if you're a nurse because he's a homosexual. Or doing physical harm to someone because he/she is a homosexual.

[editor-surveyor]

We've been Soutered again!

"Gay rights" is far uglier in it's scope than abortion. It literally has the potential to defile the entire human race.

[joesnuffy]

a Schiavo type meltdown?

That's hysterical...

[xzins]

I'm thinking the same thing.

If she's wrong, then "no harm no foul."

If she's right, then it might just sink in for the next time around.

Perhaps Rehnquist's withdrawal of speculation about his retirement is related to Coulter's concerns. Rehnquist might just have a feel for Roberts.

Any idea if Coulter knows Rehnquist.

[MikefromOhio]

The entire schiavo episode was an ugly ugly time on FR.

I have never seen people act like that before and BOTH sides.