Skip to comments.Roberts worked for gay rights activists
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 ...
thats already begun LOL
Coulter is part of the "tin-foil" group?
And does the fact that a conservative person is apprehensive about a Supreme Court nominee in light of the many times so-called "conservative" candidates have turned out to be judicial activists make them a "tin-foil" individual?
I hardly think so.
I don't like the fact that Roberts worked for the Lavender Mafia. But there are other issues to consider also and the circumstances involved in this situation. Time and questioning hopefully will reveal whether Roberts is what he has been presented as, or another Souter.
In the meantime, the President isn't God and he doesn't speak with Divine Revelation. Its possible to question his actions and choices and still be a good conservative and Republican and basically support him.
I am a Coulter fan, but do not agree with her on this subject. I can disagree with someone on some things,but still not be a sarcastic,nasty person to those I do not always see eye to eye with. You sound to me like you have an Ann Coulter fixation. you are not helping your argument.
How can you call this a hit piece? A hit piece would be about John Roberts barricading himself in front of an abortion clinic, not helping the gay lobby. This is a love letter to the left - "don't worry, it's all good".
I advise not starting a I'm never voting Republican again drinking game..
I think you're right and as a person who got caught up in the Schiavo emotion, I think I'll take a pass this time.
btw, I think Roberts is going to be an excellent Supreme Court justice and that Coulter was out to lunch on her articles on this topic.
Do you think a conservative Justice should support Romer?
honestly, I think that you are just looking for shit to leave the GOP or something.
Just say it, you won't vote for the GOP again.
you know you want too.
As I have said, I think what the man has said and what I have read about him. So he did pro-bono work. So what. That probably means he is able to separate his personal feelings for that of work for a client.
that probably also means that he can separate his personal poliical leanings and will interpret the Constitution the way it was meant.
It probably DOESN'T mean that he is a Conservative Judicial activist. I can handle that. Coulter fans cannot, because if it isn't an eye for an eye with that crowd, then it's wrong.
I am REALLY going to laugh when he gets confirmed. Hell, I might even take the day off of work so I can laugh at people going into histrionics all day on FR.
Right you are. I thought we were smarter than that.
in this case, coulter is.
Someone needs to slip her a donut or something.
Mike - your immature attitude is only further proof you have nothing to back up your assertion. Without a paper trail demonstrating a conservative philosophy, why are you so adamant that it will turn out that way?
believe me I have NO Ann coulter fascination.
However, some individuals on here will take ANY Roberts thread and say "Ann coulter was right" over and over again.
and I would bet that he wouldn't if he were a justice, however he was a lawyer at the time, not a justice.
Yeah I think so too.
If she is snakebitten, she could just admit it instead of writing an throughly unreadable article.
"The problem is, that the Supreme Court invented a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy."
That's not what the case they're talking about was about.
Has anybody stopped to consider that this all happened 10 years ago? How many people here would stand by everything they did ten years ago?
Get a grip, folks.
I am selling Prozac for cheap. get it now before the Senate hearings.
Hey--you know as well as I do the future history of this planet. It's gonna happen. Just be thankful it's all under control.
I don't know why anyone would think that because a lawyer has a certain client in his career, or takes any certain advocacy position, that that provides any indication regarding his future judicial philosophy.
(By the way, I agree whole-heartedly with your screen name)
I'm not an alarmist but I wasn't born yesterday either. Souter, Stephens and Kennedy were given to us by good Republican Presidents which means appointing Justices to the SCOTUS is a very tricky business.
Being concerned because Dubya appointed somebody with no appellate record to speak of is not abnormal, it logically follow the past 30 years of appointment history.
'AC' is not only beautiful.....
i choose not to be snakebitten.
besides that fact, gay rights aren't my only qualifier.
This judge is ardently pro-life for example...
Romer gutted Bowers de facto.
It doesn't matter what you write because you offer no substance, just a lot of insecurity over this choice. You don't want to be proven wrong, so you tear down anyone who disagrees with you. It's really sad that you can't hold a conversation without acting like the village bozo.
I'm not being a troll here, I just thought this was relevant.
Woaaaa... If this is true, I don't like this one bit! :(
Maybe he'll take some pro-bono work for NARAL, too, since he can separate his beliefs from his career.
Agreed. They were nearly hysterical pieces, so much so that I wondered if she really believed what she was saying.
And as you both have pointed out, he was working as a lawyer in a law firm. I don't think his work on this case is a real indication of how he would vote in any particular case that would cross his desk in the future.
And I say that as a trained lawyer (though I've never practiced). If someone came to me needing help, I would want to help them. It is the nature of the job, and of our legal system.
For example, defense attorneys might think their client is guilty of murder (and in fact, defense attorneys don't even want to know if their client is actually guilty, because if they do they can't put him on the stand in his own defense), but they will use all their training to exonerate him.
It's the way the system works.
Hi, SA. I agree.
It is annoying, but being mean and laughing at people does not help. I think he is an excellent candidate, and is crafty and smart, maybe even cunning all done with a very happy smile on his face. He is Conservative and he has been a Lawyer for many years, and sometimes your bosses make you clean up crap. He has earned his Appointment and his Supreme Ct Judge Robes. I would caution everyone to hold your fire for now because the media know how to manipulate and get Conservatives at each other's throats.
I agree with that.
I also agree with being cautious.
but you can be OVERLY cautious as well.
Kind of like the sports analogy "playing not to win, but not to lose".
Lots of entertainment in this thread. Thanks for the ping.
Romer is simply more of the same ole same ole, taking cultural issues out of the public square and letting the gods on the becnch decide. I hope to hell Roberts doesn't have that mindset."
I see no problem with an attorney advocating a position under the rules of the game at the time he's playing. That has no bearing on what his judicial philosophy will be. Would we have expected him to say, so that he would pass muster today, "I can't help you because I believe that the Constituition should be interpreted in X fashion, even though everyone else is interpreting it in Y fashion?" I would say that probably would not be a very good lawyer.
I'm pretty sure Roberts is a vote to overturn major parts of Roe and Doe v Bolton but I'm not sure because there is no record. So asking questions and being dubious is OK by me.
In fact, I see nothing wrong with either side asking potential justices about their personal morality and if and how it would affect their interpretation of constitutional law. I'm especially interested in the radical secualar humanist derivation of morality as it pertains to law and the constitution.
"We know he supports Roe v. Wade as precedent and "settled law"."
No we don't. We know he said something along those lines as part of the tapdance that all Supreme Court nominees must engage in to lessen the probability of a nuclear battle.
"We know he did pro bono work for the gay lobby."
We know very little factually on this issue, and even if he did, it doesn't necessarily mean anything.
"We know he's "open-minded"."
Wow. That's pretty damning. What's the context of that "quote?"
I think attorneys should do their job period, just like everybody else. It's the pro bono thing that bothers me a bit. Lawyers, I would think as a rule (but I could be wrong here), only accept pro bono constitutional cases when they agree with the desired outcome. No?
Good point, and that probably prevents a lot of good people from considering public service.
Scalia thinks the constitution doesn't protect the lives of the unborn?
LOL, certainly not but I'd pay an admission to fee to hear the answer to that question from the likes of Justice Ginsburg.