Roberts worked for gay rights activists

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

[U.H. Conservative]

Your argument is like saying that Griswold was irrelevant to Roe because because after Griswold abortion was still legal. Romer laid the intellectual foundation for Lawrence just as Lawrence laid the foundation for Goodkind.

[jude24]

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

No. My own opinion is that there may be genetic predispositions, but free will enters into the equation, just like alcoholism. Some people's genetics predispose them more to alcoholism, but they have the choice to control themselves. Homosexual orientation may be physiological - it's not for me to say - but homosexual acts are not.

But clearly we can discriminate against polygamists and adulterers.

We can define what marriage is, but we cannot discriminate against adulterers. Just try to impeach a witness based on his sexual infidelity - you'll get nowhere.

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

Being conservative doesn't mean that I think that the State of Colorado can remove all legal protections from homosexuals. If you notice, Romer used a rational basis review, the lowest level of scrutiny for a 14th Amendment question. It didn't give them any special rights, but the rights that all Americans have - the right not to be discriminated against - particularly by the government - for something irrelevant to their job, or as the case may be.

[xzins]

Can you post a copy/paste of the amendment in question so we all can peruse it. Thanks.

[jude24]

Did you read the majority opinion, or just the Scalia part you liked?

[U.H. Conservative]

I don't know about Roberts but the cases I do pro bono are those whose outcome I favor. I ask myself little questions like "Should this even be litigated or is it a political question?" "If it should be litigated, do I want this side to be the winning side?" "What are the implications of this case down the road?"

Admittedly, I'm a new attorney. But one would think that a lawyer as well respected as Roberts would ask himself similar questions. And apparently the answer he came up with was that yes, the case belonged before the courts rather than the people and he was happy with what would fallout from victory. That says a lot about his judicial philosophy.

[em2vn]

Do you know had to write a cogent sentence or do do you find pride in acting like a middle school drop out?
Generally there is a decent level of discourse on FR but on occasion a guy like you shows up with a case of cranio-rectal inversiion and acts the fool. Good luck with that. I sure it's helpful in your life.

[xzins]

Thank you.

Any reason to think Rehnquist might have had a heads up on whom was the leading candidate before Roberts was actually nominated?

[MikefromOhio]

Do you know had to write a cogent sentence or do do you find pride in acting like a middle school drop out?

I will take answer B. I LOVE being a MIDDLE SCHOOL DROPOUT!! woohoo!!!

And you are one to say cranial rectal LOL amazing. Would you like your Prozac now or later?

[MikefromOhio]

yeah but do you or I or anyone of us actually know how much work he really put into this case?

As far as I can tell, he didn't do any of the arguements for it, and at the very most seemed to be more of a proof-reader so to speak....

[jude24]

Colo. Const. Art. II, Section 30b (2004) reads:

Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing.

The part I put in bold is the problem, as I read Romer. You can deny special rights, but you cannot deny the fundamental right to Equal Protection under the Law. This Amendment would do precisely that.

[Kryptonite]

Nah, no more than any other Washington insider, maybe even less, because Rehnquist said nothing about not retiring until the announcement was actually made.

I think Roberts was somebody that was on short lists for a long time. Even I pegged him as one of my own top two (just behind Luttig) before the announcement was made.

[jude24]

As far as I can tell, he didn't do any of the arguements for it,

He's certainly not a counsel of record. Westlaw or LexisNexis would include his name there if he were.

[U.H. Conservative]

Jude, the anti-discrimination laws did grant special rights. They said that an individual could not be fired because of his/her decision to engage in homosexual conduct. However, they did not grant an individual like myself protection from being fired because I choose to vote for conservative candidates. Or because I don't wear suspenders. Or any other umber of voluntary behavior.

Any anti-discrimination law based solely on protecting an individuals voluntary decisions is a special right.

[jude24]

Any anti-discrimination law based solely on protecting an individuals voluntary decisions is a special right.

Not if the behavior is:
1. Legal
2. None of an employer's, the government's, or a landlord's business.

[U.H. Conservative]

Again, there is significance in attaching your name to something. If it is volunteer work, you are implicitly saying you agree with the cause.

Like I said before, had this been a paying client, that would be one thing. It was not and his decision to assist in this case should at least make your Spidey-sense tingle.

[U.H. Conservative]

Better than a beauty school dropout, no? :)

[U.H. Conservative]

And who are you to decide what is or is not the employer/landlord's business? I realize that Kelo exposed the fact that private property rights in this country are becoming more of the punchline to jokes but I expect better of FReepers.

[colorado tanker]

This is a hit piece, although it may make Dim opposition more problematic.

Big lawfirms tend to be dominated by liberals, even when they have some conservative partners. Roberts would have had very little say in whether to take pro bono work accepted by another partner. According to the article he didn't work on the briefs and gave very general advice to the lawyer making the actual argument before SCOTUS how to prepare. Stuff he would likely do for any client of the firm.

This piece reveals nothing as to what he may have thought of the merits of Romer.

[Modernman]

Pro-bono indicates that he volunteered to work on this case. What kind of lawyer seeks out a sodomy "rights" case to work on for free?

As one of the top appellate litigators at his firm, he probably was approached by whoever was working on this case for tips about how to approach the issue. That's what the article seems to indicate.

That's not uncommon at a law firm. The subject-matter of the case was probably irrelevant to him. He just gave advice to a colleague based on his years of experience arguing before the Supreme Court.

[jude24]

And who are you to decide what is or is not the employer/landlord's business?

Me? No one. The State of New York, or Colorado, or wherever? They have not only the power, but the responsibility, to protect people from what is, fundamentally, not the employers' or landlord's business.