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.
Oh please, not with the gay stuff.
Either you're planting that stuff here to try to spread rumors or you're dealing in gossip. Either way it should
be beneath someone who bills themselves as a "lady lawyer".
Then again...
Rubbish. Who do you think the FIRM is? The individual partners of a firm decide which pro bono cases to take on for themselves. Heck, even as an associate at a large firm, I have discretion as to which pro bono cases I take. I choose the cases that I believe do good for society, like defending poor clients' property against eminent domain. The liberals choose cases like the ABA death penalty project.
So have I. And if the end result of the person seeking my advise winning would be a dreadful exercise of judicial activism, I politely decline their request. Any conservative would. Period.
I am very disturbed if Roberts was donating his time to the gay rights activists. You don't work pro bono unless you want to. This is entirely different from taking a paying client's position in litigation.
Perverts should not be able to bring the government down on those of us who don't like what they do, don't want to hire them, and don't want to rent our property to them.
Why would a many like Roberts, who is otherwise conservative, donate his time to a cause like this?
You could not be more wrong. When renting your property do you think it's legal to advertise for white, straight, Protestant, families only? If you wish to donate the dwelling to a certain class, have at it. Otherwise, read the Constitution.
Jeez!
And by striking this referenum down the SC effectively made homosexuals a protected minority. So now if one insults a homo one may be changed under our lovely hate laws. etc, etc, etc, if Roberts have ANYTHING to do with this then Bush should withdraw the nomination, pronto.
You can choose your religious beliefs. You can choose your creed.
The Constitution only forbids government discrimination. The government's intrusion into private business and housing in the form of anti-discrimination laws is statutory, not constitutional.
This statement assumes your conclusion. Why was the Referendum in Romer unconsitutional? Your answer to that question determines whether you are an originalist or whether you think the Supremes should make up rights and put them in the Constitution regardless of what is actually in the Constitution.
Your opinion that it was wrong should be addressed to the legislature--not to the supreme court.
Roberts was the the appellate supervisor at Hogan and Harston. He was obligated to check the work of the underling lawyers involved in the case.
"More evidence Ann Coulter is right and this guy should never have been nominated!"
When are you people going to understand that a good lawyer will, can and does represent people that may or (more likely may not) share his views. I am anti-big business but if I was retained by big business to represent them in a cause, I would and could do it.
My views as a citizen have nothing to do with my legal actions.
And people are routinely discriminated against on the basis of that creed!
In which case we need more information.
What was the nature of the crucial help. ("tell me about judge X" vs "tell me how to win this case".)
For some reason I am not so eager to accept any information offered by a homosexual advocate lawyer when it comes to a purported conservative judicial nominee.
I think a property owner has the right to decide (based on his religious and moral) whom he will and will not rent too...employment may be a different case....If Robert's worked to benefit the power of government to once again, tramble on property and personal rights...then we have a right to be concerned...If he turns into another Souter, you can kiss the base of the GOP goodbye....
A good lawyer does NOT WORK FOR FREE TO HELP GAYS IN A LAND MARK CASE TO ADVANCE GAY RIGHTS! A liberal RAT does.
Do you want a man serving on the Supreme Court who would make up new rights and put them in the constitution because his cousin lives in CO and needs an apartment?
this is just a smear tactic from the usual suspects. what would they say if he hadn't helped them? that he is a homophobe? there he can't be qualified? anyone remember edwards taking a cheaop swipe at cheney?
Maybe one should read the Declaration of Independence then. Especially the part "where all men are created equal."
The employer should be able to choose which candidate meets their needs for a job, and regardless of how it may interfere it should be the province of the employer to decide what might affect the job, it's not the province of the applicant or the government. Anything less is ANTI BUSINESS. (That's two strikes, he's pro gay AND anti business)
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.