Posted on 08/04/2005 7:37:34 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
Supreme Court nominee John Roberts donated his time to work behind the scenes for gay rights activists – and helped win a decision that’s been hailed as the "single most important positive ruling” for the gay rights movement.
Roberts was a lawyer specializing in appellate work in 1995 when he agreed to help represent the gay rights activists as part of his law firm’s pro bono work.
He did not argue the case before the Supreme Court, but he was instrumental in reviewing filings and preparing oral arguments, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times.
"Roberts’ work on behalf of gay rights activists, whose cause is anathema to many conservatives, appears to illustrate his allegiance to the credo of the legal profession: to zealously represent the interests of the client, whoever it might be,” the newspaper reports.
Walter A. Smith, then head of the pro bono department at Roberts’ law firm, Hogan & Hartson, asked for Roberts’ help on the case and he agreed immediately. "It’s illustrative of his open-mindedness, his fair-mindedness,” said Smith. "He did a brilliant job.”
The case before the Supreme Court, Romer vs. Evans, dealt with a voter-approved 1992 Colorado initiative that would have allowed employers and landlords to exclude gays from jobs and housing.
A 6-3 ruling striking down the initiative was handed down in May 1996.
Jean Dubofsky, lead lawyer for the gay rights activists, said Roberts’ work in the case was "absolutely crucial.”
And Suzanne B. Goldberg, a lawyer with Lambda, a legal services group for gays and lesbians, called the Supreme Court ruling the "single most important positive ruling in the history of the gay rights movement.”
Antonin Scalia – who was joined in his dissent by Clarence Thomas and William H. Rehnquist – said: "Coloradans are entitled to be hostile toward homosexual conduct.”
Roberts did not mention the case in his 67-page response to a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire that was released Tuesday.
The committee had asked for specific instances in which he had performed pro bono work.
Smith said the omission was most likely an oversight because Roberts wasn’t the chief litigator in the case.
In another pro bono case, Roberts failed to overturn a Washington, D.C., measure that took welfare benefits away from homeless people.
Um, of course. You theory still doesn't fly. There are too many powerful, successful women in corporate America who had to work just as long and hard to reach their positions but for whom biology was an equally strong motivation. As I said, neither of us knows so you are free to believe what makes you happy.
I think it is common amongst hig achieving people to delay marraige. How could Conid devote herself to starting a family when she is working 14-16 hours a day?
With families? Hardly. People (male and female alike) who are that motivated generally either have the courtesy not to start a family, wait till they're done being so productive, or marry and put their family through hell by never being around.
You bought into some unstated, but glaring and false assumptions; that "sexual preference" is a special, new, previously unheard of "right", that homosexuals should be treated a special, protected class in the law having the protection of government power over/against property owners' and employers' God-given property rights, and that it is proper for the National government by edict of the Supreme Politburo to enforce acceptance of this particular kind of wickedness.
The notion that it is 'persecution' for the government to protect rights against licentitious behavior is perverse itself. It is the antithetical to the purpose of government. All that is required to illustrate how absurd the notion that homosexuals should be a protected class is to ask one question; How do you know who is a member of the purported class?
Cordially,
This lawyer worked for free to strike down the wishes of the people. This incident alone raises at least three areas of concern:
Judicial arrogance ( personal views trump will of the people )
Property Rights. If an owner of some property has no say about who can and cannot be on his property, anything else to do with property rights is at risk from there.
Freedom of Association. There is no freedom of association if there is no freedom to disassociate. When you can't choose who you want on your property and working at your own business, America is pretty much dead at that point.
Just to be clear, you two would be ok with a sign in a store window or a newspaper ad that said, "only whites wanted" (or "blacks" or "___")?
You are lucky, Chuck! And more patient than I am: I was a landlord for ten years, would never do it again. (Grrrrr!)
FYI, despite all the 'heat' being shed in these here parts--and golly I don't mean to confuse no one with the law--if you are renting your home or a property that houses less than four families, although you can't place a discriminatory ad in the paper you can tell a potential tenant to 'take a hike' for any darn reason you like.
http://www.efn.org/~fairhous/eng/legalres/federal/fhaa100.htm#100.5
"So you think homosexuals should be a protected minority with special rights huh?"
No, bozo, I think gays are humans and should NOT have special discriminatory laws. They have the same rights as you and I.
I'm not sure if anyone has posted the text of Amendment 2, which was in dispute in the Romer v. Evans case. Here it is just help the debate along a bit:
"No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian, or Bisexual Orientation. 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."
Then why to you support the laws and lawers that created the law that made homosexual a protected minority and gave them special rights? All the Co, referentdum stated is that homosexual are not a protected minority and do not have special rights. (Wondering who the bozo really is?)
What do you mean by "ok"? I would thoroughly disapprove of such a store, and would look down on anyone who patronized it... but that doesn't mean I approve of tax-funded thugs going in there with guns and forcing the proprietor to pretend he's not a racist (or other kind of bigot).
The free market is perfectly capable of handling (i.e., punishing) those stupid enough to do something like that.
---------------------------------
Ok, let's take a look at that...for how long has Condi been in W's cabinet? Less than six years. Throughout her thirties and forties her life and schedule were no more hectic or demanding than those of thousands of other accomplished women (heck, for eight years or so she was a college professor - they don't date/marry/have kids?). As I've said, I don't know and I'll assume that you don't have a personal relationship with her either. But I do know that if she were a democrat this forum would have long ago decided the issue and the benefit of the doubt would not be a factor.
Yeah, I mean...all straight men have desires for other men. They just don't act on them. They CHOOSE not to act on them.
I mean..if you disagree that all straight men have those desires than obviously not everyone is in the same boat and some people have feelings for men and some don't. If that's the case, than you choose to act on the feelings. You don't choose to be a homosexual. That's silly.
"All the Co, referentdum stated is that homosexual are not a protected minority and do not have special rights."
The Colorado referendum made it legal to deny jobs and housing to gays as a special class. That is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. What part of discrimination don't you understand? Can you give me an example of a 'special' right confered on gays (marriage not included)?
So if a strait man has an urge to rape a woman he should just go for it right? It's just a matter of protecting his sexual choices right?
Deep cover troll, huh? How much are they paying you guys these days?
The framing of the issue in these terms is slanted to elicite the desired result. The actual text of the initiative to amend the Colorado Constitution said:
"No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian, or Bisexual Orientation. 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 Supreme Politburo ruled that,
"Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause..." Justice Kennedy writing for the majority.
Scalia in the dissent wrote,
"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."
Cordially,
Please cite the applicable language from the U.S. Constitution.
Yes, the fact that homosexuals are a specially protected class who can claim discrimination based on sexual something or other. (I can never tell how the members of this class are supposed to be identified in the law.)
Cordially,
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.