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 ...
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.
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.