John Roberts Helped in Gay Rights Case

NewsMax ^ | 8/4/05 | Limbacher

[inquest]

People here are embracing Jim Crow to make a point about an anti gay case.

That is 100% false. Jim Crow was about forced segregation. That's anti-free-association, just like Judge Garrity's forced integration in Boston in the '70s. The comments on this board that you so stenuously object to are pro-free-association. There is no equivalency between the two.

[inquest]

I doubt they are trying to make Roberts more palatable out of the goodness of their hearts, but one never knows, does one?

No, not out of the goodness of their hearts. If they're pushing him, it's because they have good reason to believe that he's not as conservative as he's been made out to be. A lot of liberals in the media and in government seem to be under that impression, by the looks of things.

[inquest]

And I suppose Roberts made legal history when he represented a client he didn't personally agree with.

You mean when he did it for free? Maybe it didn't make history, but I'd wager it's not a very common occurrence, to say the least.

[muir_redwoods]

"You mean when he did it for free? Maybe it didn't make history, but I'd wager it's not a very common occurrence, to say the least."

Every firm does pro bono work and the work often goes to a lawyer with a particular skill in a given subject area. I don't know the particulars in this case but Roberts may simply have been rthe best qualified for the legal issues.

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

I now have the inside details of the case.

Roberts was considered one of the most respected legal minds in the staff. Consequently he was approached on more than 100 occasions for assistance and he never turned anyone down. Period. With reference to this specific case, he spent some 6 hours in mock judicial forum, preparing the attorney for what to expect in court and how to deal with it. He did not address anything other than fundamentals.

Firms decide which cases they will accept, and it's the lawyers role to take and/or assist based where he is needed. Hell, how much of a role did his secretary play?

[inquest]

There's no evidence from any of the reports that he was assigned the case as his job. All indications are that the head of the pro bono department (who apparently was not his boss) asked for his help, and he gave it voluntarily.

[muir_redwoods]

"There's no evidence from any of the reports that he was assigned the case as his job. All indications are that the head of the pro bono department (who apparently was not his boss) asked for his help, and he gave it voluntarily."

And the problem with this is? All people are entitled to legal representation.

[inquest]

All people are entitled to legal representation.

I must've missed the memo on that. I hardly consider lawyers obligated to donate their time to advancing points of law that they know are incorrect.

[muir_redwoods]

"I must've missed the memo on that. I hardly consider lawyers obligated to donate their time to advancing points of law that they know are incorrect.'

Can't help you there since you seem to be replying to a point I didn't make. I said all people hae a right to legal representation. I never said they all had a right to free representation but if a firm is doing pro bono work and a gifted atty has particular skills in an area of the law the litigant needs there is often a good match.

One, if one is to act as an adult, one must never make the perfect the enemy of the good. John Roberts may well have represented a gay rights group. Gay people do have rights and since the particulars of this matter have only been made known in the MSM one would be ill-advised to make that the last word on the subject.

[inquest]

One, if one is to act as an adult, one must never make the perfect the enemy of the good.

I've yet to be convinced that Roberts represents the good.

John Roberts may well have represented a gay rights group.

He could have, but that's not the objection that's being raised. He's being criticized for helping prepare a case that was based on a very shoddy understanding of the law. Whose behalf he was doing it on is utterly irrelevant.

[rollo tomasi]

It's safe to assume the firm knew Roberts a) Probably argues well and b) Was probably considered conservative by other lawyers.

Hence the Firm's asking him to play the "devil's advocate".

I am sure Roberts probably had an inclination which way Thomas, Scalia and Rehnquist were going to rule on Amend 2 so in his support of the Firm he was used to sway O'Connor and Kennedy.

Money is the ultimate ideological equalizer. Although Roberts work was free, the victory brought in a huge amount leverage and respect for the firm in which to charge the paying clients.

I do not like it, but unfortunately was Robert's job, period, end of story. I hope Roberts took a long shower to wipe the filth away afterward though.

[inquest]

He needs to publicly explain his actions, not have a bunch of others speculate on his behalf and then sweep this under the rug.

[Ol' Sparky]

We're embracing freedom. Private employers and landlords shouldn't be forced to hire or rent to anyone they don't want to associate with. That's the way things work in a truly free nation.

And, good people have the freedom to boycott and stigmatize those that engage in racial discrimination.

Has it occurred to you that racism might have ended without a socialist solution?