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 ...
"He worked for FREE for gay activists"
I see that this is the thing that really bothers you. Maybe you need to study the nature of pro bono work. By definition it is free. Also often involves dealing with unsavory characters. Has nothing whatsoever to do with the individual's opinions. His firm wanted to handle the case and they directed the lead attorney to the man with the most Supreme Court experience.
There's nothing here.
"You know, all people of good conscience should be revolted by that story."
"Exactly. But, why are so many living in a fantasy world of denial about the fact the Bush just gave us the legal counsel for a group of gay rights activists?"
This is just a total non sequitur.
"Bush just gave us the legal counsel for a group of gay rights activists?""
Over the top hyperbole. Relax. If you want to know Roberts' judicial philosophy (that's the one we should be concerned about) read the french fry case.
Lets listen to day and see if Levin has anything more to say about this guy.
Amendment 2 stated that no law could be enacted to bar discrimination on the basis of a homosexual or bisexual orientation, nor could such discrimination be grounds for legal action. The law did not apply to heterosexuals. If it had, it might have withstood court scrutiny. As it was, it placed a barrier between homosexual Coloradans and the law-making process that didn’t exist for any other group. The issue was not about whether or not homosexuals should be a protected class. It was about equality before the law.
That is a good argument. In that sense the amendment was poorly drafted and probably incapable of acheiving the ends for which it was drafted.
However, the state still has a right to regulate behavior and in that sense I think it is perfectly legal for the state of Colorado to bar any lawsuit for discrimination on the grounds that the person engages in behavior that the state wishes to discourage. Clearly we can (in most cases) discriminate against prostitutes and drug addicts. The state has a rational basis for refusing to grant those people any kind of special priviledges including the right to claim discrimination based upon a dislike for that behavior.
Behavior is not an immutable characteristic.
Frankly I think all laws prohibiting or granting the right to sue for discrimination of any kind by private individuals or companies should be abolished. But that's another thread.
That's the argument behind Romer, and why I say it was rightly decided.
I guess you are smarter than I thought. I didn't read it. I have more important cases that I have to read. The ones I get paid to read. :-)
Kudos. And apologies for questioning your legal reasoning. I trust you will pass the bar on the first try.
But I still have my doubts about you sitting on the Supreme Court.
Man, they are pulling out all stops. I think the Baltimore Sun is even less trustworthy than the NYT.
He did get himself kicked off the GRPL swarm so he has that going for him if he wants the SC spot.
Per Justice Scalia:
"Today's opinion has no foundation in American constitutional law, and barely pretends to. The people of Colorado have adopted an entirely reasonable provision which does not even disfavor homosexuals in any substantive sense, but merely denies them preferential treatment. Amendment 2 is designed to prevent piecemeal deterioration of the sexual morality favored by a majority of Coloradans, and is not only an appropriate means to that legitimate end, but a means that Americans have employed before. Striking it down is an act, not of judicial judgment, but of political will. I dissent."
That's true. But I thought he resigned. Getting kicked off is worth at least 10 SC nomination points but resigning is probably only worth 5. He'll need more penance than that to convince me of his worthiness. But you can be cured of Law School. Scalia and Thomas are both prime examples of how an Ivy League legal education is not completely debilitating.
A subtle but important difference.
Scalia is just wrong about this. It, quite simply, singles out a politically unpopular group, and tells them that the courts are closed to them for discrimination suits, but not for anyone else.
That is not "Equal Protection."
It is more complicated than that, isn't it. It was a poorly drafted statute. All they had to say was that sexual orientation will not be granted protected status for any claim of discrimination based solely on the sexual orientation of the complainant. The problem with the statute was that the actually did single out "homosexuals and lesbians" as a group (rather than sexual orientation) and then sought to deny them equal protection under the law. It was not that difficult to draft a constitutionally acceptable statute. This was not it. And if Roberts made the same arguments as you when he advised his "client" then he probably was adopting an acceptable interpretation of the constitution.
Someday I might even read the case.
"How can you critique a case you haven't read!!!???" yelped Jude24.
I assume you're referring to homosexuals?
Why shouldn't the courts be closed to them for discrimination suits?
Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle. It is not something that cannot be helped, like race.
If it was a "poorly drafted statute", why would the SCOTUS have to get involved? Why would it be a federal issue?
Because the Constitution neither knows, nor tolerates, classes amongst its citizens (Plessy v. Furgeuson dissent).
Because, under the 14th Amendment, SCOTUS has the responsibility to intervene when the right to Equal Protection under the law is infringed upon by a State action, as here.
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.