Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Roberts worked for gay rights activists
The Baltimore Sun ^ | 8/4/05 | Richard Serrano

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: gay; homosexualagenda; johnroberts; roberts; romervevans; scotus; stupidsubject; ussc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 341-359 next last
To: syriacus
And the problem?

The problem is the term "sexual orientation". Why shouldn't people be able to discriminate against a behavior that to them may be reprehensible. The problem is that sexual orientation is not equivalent to race and should not be a "protected class" and be included in discrimination law.

201 posted on 08/04/2005 10:14:16 AM PDT by savagesusie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MikeinIraq

"Someone needs to slip her a donut or something."

This and your other comments on this thread show just how childish you are.

Of course a glimpse of your "home page" does as well.

Maybe you should grow up a little.


202 posted on 08/04/2005 10:16:40 AM PDT by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: U.H. Conservative
You don't understand how law firms work. What you propose would be very bad form. When you're partners with someone, you don't refuse help you're in a position to give. Now, if this group had approached him to take the case and take lead, that would be an entirely different matter. I doubt his partners would mind at all if he would have taken a pass in that case.

Please keep in mind lawyers are advocates who don't necessarily believe the same way as their clients and often take cases they might not rule in favor of if they were on the bench deciding them.

203 posted on 08/04/2005 10:19:05 AM PDT by colorado tanker (The People Have Spoken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
Your point on good form also applies to the attorney approaching Roberts. THe question is, did he know whether Roberts would feel comfortable in advocating judicial activism.

Your views on the divorce between attorney and client viewpoints are wuite true in the context of paying clients. It is my experience that in pro bono work, the attorney's views do tend to track with the client.
204 posted on 08/04/2005 10:25:36 AM PDT by U.H. Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: U.H. Conservative

Whatever. The bottom line is that this case tells us nothing about Roberts' views on gay rights issues just like the fact he argued against Roe for the Reagan/Bush administration tells us nothing about his actual views on that subject either.


205 posted on 08/04/2005 10:30:58 AM PDT by colorado tanker (The People Have Spoken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker

Please. This was voluntary work Roberts chose to do.

He was arguing *for* the side against which Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas *dissented*.


206 posted on 08/04/2005 10:33:35 AM PDT by k2blader (Hic sunt dracones..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
If it is a choice between generally supporting the President and generally opposing him, I'm on the side that generally supports him.

Also, I don't always agree with the President. For example, placing tariffs on steel in his first term was disgraceful IMHO.

However, in time of war, and at a time when the man is facing unrelenting bitter partisan hostility from the 'Rats, the very last thing we want or need are a bunch of ankle-biters that take any news item, commentary or rumor and use it as an excuse to bash him.

As far as I am concerned, the real RINOS are people that don't loyally support Republicans in general. If there are so many Republicans, including the President, that one finds repugnant and not conservative enough, then it is fair to say that the Republican Party isn't conservative enough. The FACT is that the Republican Party devoid of everyone not 100% conservative wouldn't elect enough members of Congress to prevent the 'Rats from obtaining a 2/3 majority in both Houses.

207 posted on 08/04/2005 10:39:26 AM PDT by You Dirty Rats (Vote for Jean Schmidt Aug 2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
The bottom line is that this case tells us nothing about Roberts' views on gay rights issues just like the fact he argued against Roe for the Reagan/Bush administration tells us nothing about his actual views on that subject either.

But it's enough of an excuse for the Bush-haters to come out like flies at a summer picnic.

208 posted on 08/04/2005 10:40:27 AM PDT by You Dirty Rats (Vote for Jean Schmidt Aug 2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter

lol


209 posted on 08/04/2005 10:44:53 AM PDT by since1868
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: jude24; xzins; blue-duncan
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

Baloney! Protected status is a special right not a fundamental right. Claims of discrimination are based upon protected status, which is a statutory right and not a constitutional right. Nowhere in the constitution is there any guarantee of non-discrimination, especially as it relates to behavior. The only prohibition against discrimination is in regard to voting and then only in regard to race, color, or previous condition of servitude

That statute says nothing more than that the government cannot give homosexual men any more rights than it gives white anglo-saxon protestant males who are between the ages of 18 and 45. IOW, a homosexual cannot use his or her deviant BEHAVIOR as the basis of a discrimination claim.

Adultery and polygamy and incest are all legitimate reasons to deny someone a job as they are a reflection on their moral character. This may not be politically correct, but IMO and historically homosexual behavior is a reflection on the character of the person engaging in that behavior. It is not something they MUST do, it is a behavior that they voluntarily and with knowledge of the cosequences engage in.

By your reasoning the Military is in violation of the US Constitution by not allowing admitted practicing homosexuals into the service.

Again jude, did you think this way before you entered law school, or is this something that you picked up along the way?

210 posted on 08/04/2005 10:50:40 AM PDT by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats

Apparently so.


211 posted on 08/04/2005 10:53:18 AM PDT by colorado tanker (The People Have Spoken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
Big lawfirms tend to be dominated by liberals, even when they have some conservative partners.

Depends on the firm, depends on its clients, depends on its practice areas etc. Especially in DC, you have firms with different political leanings.

212 posted on 08/04/2005 11:26:21 AM PDT by Modernman ("A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -Disraeli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC
Particularly if gay collegues who may have been spearheading the effort came to him for advice on the case.

Absolutely. It would have been simple professional courtesy to give a few pointers.

213 posted on 08/04/2005 11:28:25 AM PDT by Modernman ("A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -Disraeli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: BroncosFan

Thought you might find this thread interesting.


214 posted on 08/04/2005 11:33:27 AM PDT by Modernman ("A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -Disraeli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

I agree with you totally.
But what does IMO and IOW mean?

Based on this, I hope the Dems DO Bork this guy.


215 posted on 08/04/2005 11:47:06 AM PDT by bummerdude (Boycott Chevron-Texaco, buy Exxon-Mobil !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: bummerdude; xzins; jude24; blue-duncan
Based on this, I hope the Dems DO Bork this guy.

Actually I don't. In fact I don't think it is at all fair to judge an attorney by his client. As an Attorney I am often asked to write petitions or argue positions that I do not necessarily agree with. (In fact I'm in the process of doing that right now).

In fact sometimes my client's positions are inopposite of my own, but I'm not hired to represent myself, I'm hired to represent my clients.

In this case it appears quite likely that Roberts was asked to review some of the work done by other memebers of his firm and he did it and made suggestions on how to best represent "the client" in court.

Frankly I really don't care if the nominee is a homosexual abortionist as long as he is a strict constructionist and more committed to the actual words of the constitution than he is to his own agenda.

216 posted on 08/04/2005 12:07:44 PM PDT by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Me too, I usually agree with her on almost everything, and she knows how to dig deep into subjects no one else will dare.


217 posted on 08/04/2005 12:11:58 PM PDT by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: bummerdude
But what does IMO and IOW mean?

IOW = In other words and IMO = In My opinion.

FWIW you many need to follow the link to figure out what FWIW means.

218 posted on 08/04/2005 12:19:30 PM PDT by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Modernman

What you say about DC firms is true. Hogan and Hartson historically has played both sides of the aisle in its lobbying and political practice, although my impression is it has more dems than pubbies. In terms of the personal politics of the lawyers, my impression is most lean left as most big firm lawyers do.


219 posted on 08/04/2005 12:27:44 PM PDT by colorado tanker (The People Have Spoken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
What counts for me more than who Roberts clients have been is that people very close to him like Hugh Hewitt, and his wife for that matter, reflect my values and give him the thumbs up.

And c'mon, was Souter ever a member of the Federalist Society??

220 posted on 08/04/2005 12:31:59 PM PDT by colorado tanker (The People Have Spoken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 341-359 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson