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 ...
Reasonable.
Well put, and the answer to that lies solely in our prayers as a nation.
I would imagine so, since Roberts clerked for Rehnquist.
ROFL!!!
Perfect description!
I'm not, I have an open mind but admittedly have the occasional headache about another appointment absent an extensive appellate record.
The guy was doing his job. He was obligated to oversee all work done in the appellate division.
Kryptonites 135 is a good analysis of the Romer case and its ramifications. Very good.
"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.
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
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.
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.
And I mean it when say you're entitled to your opinion but IMBCO, the facts don't accord with your opinion. :-}
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.
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....
You're one of the smartest people here . . . thanks for the compliment.
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.