Roberts worked for gay rights activists

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

[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.

[U.H. Conservative]

Matters b/c this was pro bono work that he did not have to take. I can understand as a paid attorney representing clients whose views you do not agree with. Who you voluntarily help may say a lot about your personal views.

[jwalsh07]

Reasonable.

[editor-surveyor]

" Let us pray God's intention is to bless us as a nation rather than to judge us as a nation."

Well put, and the answer to that lies solely in our prayers as a nation.

[Kryptonite]

Rehnquist might just have a feel for Roberts.

I would imagine so, since Roberts clerked for Rehnquist.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

ROFL!!!

Perfect description!

[jwalsh07]

I'm not, I have an open mind but admittedly have the occasional headache about another appointment absent an extensive appellate record.

[Antoninus]

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

No, I haven't made up my mind. From the beginning, I've had a "wait-and-see" attitude on Roberts. Same as I'd had on Souter. I want to believe that Roberts is the next Scalia or Thomas, but I'm waiting for the evidence to come in. The fact that this guy doesn't have a paper trail (like Souter), has been worrying from day one. This news is a further bad sign.

If you can't see that, then I suggest you think about taking off the rose-colored glasses at some point.

[RGSpincich]

He returned to Hogan & Hartson in 1993. At the time of his confirmation, Judge Roberts was the senior partner in charge of Hogan & Hartson's appellate practice.

The guy was doing his job. He was obligated to oversee all work done in the appellate division.

[jwalsh07]

Kryptonites 135 is a good analysis of the Romer case and its ramifications. Very good.

[BadAndy]

"it doesn't but it gives Coulter fans and the tin foil crew something to scream about."

The Roberts case pits the "tin foil hat" crew against the "purple kool aid" drinkers. What in Robert's record makes people like you so absolutely SURE that this guy will vote the way you expect? There is nothing, yet you attack people who have been burned before (Soutered) on phoney conservate justices for asking questions. Please tell me WHY people who are concerned should stop worrying.

The fact is that we won't know for sure what kind of justice this guy will be until he is on the court and unnacountable. We would have preferred more of a sure thing and not to roll the dice with the future of the country.

[MikefromOhio]

then if you haven't made up your mind, look at what the NYSLIMES is going to do with his family....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1456856/posts

[MikefromOhio]

ANY justice at this point could have a perfect record of conservatism and could still be a Souter or a Kennedy.

honestly, I would rather NOT have someone who appears to be a sure thing, mainly because I REALLY don't have any faith in ANY human being as a sure fire (fill in the blank here) and to be consistent.

If the man was JUST doing his job in this case, and I believe he was and there is no indication of anything else, then this is a lot of noise for no reason.

[P-Marlowe]

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.

Jude, Jude, Jude, Jude, Jude.

Have you bought into the atheistic and (IMO Satanistic) belief that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic, like being born black?

Homosexuality is a behavior. It is in fact a perversion of God's design and pupose. It is not immutable. It is a behavior and it is a sin. I would dare say that most men have polygamous tendencies and would (if they did not control their behavior) be more than happy to commit fornication and adultery with dozens of women. But clearly we can discriminate against polygamists and adulterers. Polygamous and Adulterous BEHAVIOR reflects on a man's character and is a legitimate reason to discriminate in employment. Would you want a polygamist teaching your children about the joys of polygamy? Would you want an open adulterer teaching your children about the joys of adultery? Then why do we put up with homosexuals coming into our schools and indoctrinating our children about the joys of homosexual BEHAVIOR?

Jude, did you think like this BEFORE you entered law school? I remember you as being more conservative.

[jwalsh07]

"....First, as to its eminent reasonableness. The Court's opinion contains grim, disapproving hints that Coloradans have been guilty of "animus" or "animosity" toward homosexuality, as though that has been established as Unamerican. Of course it is our moral heritage that one should not hate any human being or class of human beings. But I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible--murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals--and could exhibit even "animus" toward such conduct. Surely that is the only sort of "animus" at issue here: moral disapproval of homosexual conduct, the same sort of moral disapproval that produced the centuries old criminal laws that we held constitutional in Bowers. The Colorado amendment does not, to speak entirely precisely, prohibit giving favored status to people who are homosexuals; they can be favored for many reasons--for example, because they are senior citizens or members of racial minorities. But it prohibits giving them favored status because of their homosexual conduct--that is, it prohibits favored status for homosexuality." From Justice Scalia's dissent in Romer

And I mean it when say you're entitled to your opinion but IMBCO, the facts don't accord with your opinion. :-}

[U.H. Conservative]

You are doubting my friend. Be warned lest they brand you heretic. Simply kneel before your bust of Bush and do your devotions: "This is all just stategery. They will misunderestimate me." Drink of the sacred Kool-Aid and your troubled heart will be soothed.

[republicofdavis]

And I agree with Justice Scalia. But it is a dissent. Romer did not overrule Bowers, de facto or otherwise. Sodomy laws still existed and were enforced as much as ever (i.e. hardly ever). Did it help to set the table for Lawrence? I guess so. Is that Roberts' fault or does he deserve blame? No. Does it give any indication about his judicial philolophy? No.

Divide and conquer.

[MikefromOhio]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1456856/posts


check out this thread....

sooner or later, the LASLIMES and the NYSLIMES will be marching in lock step saying that Roberts' kids are illegitimate adoptions or something stupid....

[Kryptonite]

You're one of the smartest people here . . . thanks for the compliment.

[U.H. Conservative]

It was pro bono work that he was under no ethical obligation to take. He was a partner for pity's sake, he could pick and choose which cases he wanted to help out on.

[MikefromOhio]

he could pick and choose which cases he wanted to help out on.

And this indicates how his judicial philosophy will shape out HOW?

My God some people are paranoid here. I can understand being snakebitten, but this is really getting ridiculous. you know it is VERY disheartening to see Conservatives taking an LA TIMES story to heart and being a Conservative candidate for the Supreme Court over the head with it.

I have no more time to waste on this triviality. I can't WAIT to see the Hysteria when Roberts is confirmed.