Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

John Roberts Helped Advance the Homosexual Agenda (Editorial)
Blue Mass Group ^ | 8/4/05

Posted on 08/04/2005 9:10:32 AM PDT by gopwinsin04

It was reported today in the LA Times that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts gave substantial behind the scenes assistance, pro bono, to activists who asked the Supreme Court to overturn Colorado's 'Amendment 2' which prohibited municipalities in Colorado from adopting gay friendly ordinances and policies.

The case Romer v. Evans, was the gay movements fist significant victory in the Supreme Court and paved the way for the more recent blockbuster decision of Lawrence v. Texas which outlawed sodomy laws.

What to make of this? Is Roberts a clandestine agent of the dreaded homosexual agenda? More likely, he was just doing his job.

A partner at Roberts firm was working with the plaintiffs in Romer; and the parter asked for Roberts help, (Roberts being the best Supreme Court litigant) and Roberts agreed.

And having agreed, he gave his all, reviewing briefs, preparing lawyers for oral arguement, and generally being 'terrifically helpful.' That is exactly what lawyers are supposed to do.

This is, an excellent illustration of how difficult it is to discern a lawyer's views from his professional activities. I have no idea whether Roberts believed in his heart that the plaintiffs in Romer were right, but I will say this.

It is of course always open to a lawyer to decline to participate in a case because for whatever reason the lawyer cannot in good consicence represent the client's interests in that case.

The fact that Roberts agreed to participate in Romer at least suggests that he is not vicerally, fundamentally opposed to the pro-gay result that the planitffs sought in that case.

And that, to me, suggests that he may not be the ideaologue that the Dobsonites want on the court. (Can you imagine in the plaintiffs in a gay rights case had approached Professor Scalia for his pro-bono assistance?)

(Excerpt) Read more at bluemassgroup.typepad.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Colorado; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; johnroberts; lawrencevtexas; romervevans; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-177 next last
Handt his particiapation in this case been mentioned on the day of nomination?
1 posted on 08/04/2005 9:10:33 AM PDT by gopwinsin04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: gopwinsin04

Why do I have the suspicion that this is an attempt to get conservatives to oppose the nomination?


2 posted on 08/04/2005 9:17:09 AM PDT by perez24 (Dirty deeds, done dirt cheap.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gopwinsin04

Yes, the dobsonites will scream over this one. It sounds more like a friend helping a friend....as opposed to th subject matter of the case.


3 posted on 08/04/2005 9:18:39 AM PDT by brooklyn dave (I got rejected from "Mullah Omar's Eye for the Infidel Guy")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gopwinsin04
Link does not work. Is this the actual title of the story? Is it the same story posted many times on Free Republic today? Did you read the actual case to see what it was really about?
4 posted on 08/04/2005 9:18:46 AM PDT by msnimje
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: perez24

The president's staff must have vetted this case already with Judge Roberts during the application process, if it was good enough for them--it's good enough for me.


5 posted on 08/04/2005 9:18:47 AM PDT by gopwinsin04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: msnimje

Heres the updated link http://bluemassgroup.typepad.com/blue_mass_group/2005/08/john_roberts_he.html


6 posted on 08/04/2005 9:21:13 AM PDT by gopwinsin04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gopwinsin04

This should be forwared to the NYT reporter ginning up the controversey of Roberts' adoption of two blonde haired babies from a mostly brown haired Latin America.


7 posted on 08/04/2005 9:22:26 AM PDT by cyborg (Karma can be a cruel taskmaster or a bearer of blessings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: gopwinsin04

I hope you're right. I have to admit, this story gave me some concern.


8 posted on 08/04/2005 9:22:35 AM PDT by loreldan (Lincoln, Reagan, & G. W. Bush - the cure for Democrat lunacy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: perez24

Because you are right. And it gives the Chicken Littles on FR something to talk about.


9 posted on 08/04/2005 9:22:36 AM PDT by rabidralph
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gopwinsin04

Notice that his name isn't on any documents that pertain to the case. He only gave advice about briefs and arguments.
The White House may well not know anything about his work in the case.


10 posted on 08/04/2005 9:22:48 AM PDT by em2vn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: brooklyn dave

And it might actually gain him some vote with the Dims in the overall Senate vote.


11 posted on 08/04/2005 9:22:48 AM PDT by gopwinsin04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: gopwinsin04
This case has nothing to do with the inflammatory title "Homosexual Agenda"
The case was about protecting people against discrimination because of their sexual orientation. That also means that a GAY landlord cannot keep Heterosexual people from renting an apartment.
12 posted on 08/04/2005 9:24:05 AM PDT by msnimje
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: em2vn

The White House vetted this guy and had no knowlege of the case?


13 posted on 08/04/2005 9:24:19 AM PDT by gopwinsin04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: msnimje

So you are alright with your state taxes going to employee benefits for couples with AIDS, etc.


14 posted on 08/04/2005 9:25:59 AM PDT by gopwinsin04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: perez24

Sounds like a classic "divide-and-conquer" tactic to me as well.


15 posted on 08/04/2005 9:26:20 AM PDT by FormerLib (Kosova: "land stolen from Serbs and given to terrorist killers in a futile attempt to appease them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gopwinsin04
I'm a lumberjack Supreme Court Justice and I'm OK
I sleep all night and I work all day.

Chorus Bi Partisans:
He's a lumberjack Supreme Court Justice and he's OK
He sleeps all night and he works all day.

I cut down trees, I eat my lunch
I go to the lavatory.
On Wednesdays I go shopping and have buttered scones for tea

Mounties Democrats:
He cut down trees, he eat his lunch
He go to the lavatory.
On Wednesdays he go shopping and has buttered scones for tea.

Chorus bi Partisans:
He's a lumberjack Supreme Court Justice and he's OK
He sleeps all night and he works all day.

I cut down trees, I skip and jump
I like to press wild flowers.
I put on women's clothing and hang around in bars.

Mounties Republicans:
He cuts down trees, he skips and jumps
He likes to press wild flowers.
He puts on women's clothing and hangs around in bars?!

Chorus The entire 'Hill' now:
He's a lumberjack Supreme Court Justice and he's OK
He sleeps all night and he works all day.

I cut down trees, I wear high heels
Suspenders and a bra.
I wish I'd been a girlie, just like my dear papa!


Mounties Just the Democrats this time:
He cuts down trees, he wears high heels?!
Suspenders...and a bra?!

...He's a lumberjack Supreme Court Justice and he's OK
He sleeps all night and he works all day.

...He's/I'm a lumberjack Supreme Court Justice and he's/I'm OK
He/I sleep all night and he/I work all day.

Here now..juss 'avin a litahl fun..

16 posted on 08/04/2005 9:26:22 AM PDT by joesnuffy (Save the whales. Redeem them for valuable prizes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gopwinsin04
Coulter's right. This guy is another Souter. And another example of why the Republican party is no longer the conservative party.
17 posted on 08/04/2005 9:28:54 AM PDT by beeler ("When you’re running down my country, Hoss you’re walking on the fighting side of me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy

18 posted on 08/04/2005 9:31:24 AM PDT by gopwinsin04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: gopwinsin04
And Souter was "good enough" for Bush senior; Kennedy was "good enough" for Reagan.

I'm inclined to agree with Coulter that "good enough" doesn't cut it, not when we control the Senate and have a VP tie-vote breaker.

We ought to be going for "demonstrably and clearly proven" not merely "good enough, even if that means a one-vote squeaker win. The last thing we need is an apparent conservative who is ready to jettison his conservatism to advance emotion-based judical legislating on behalf his favorite oppressed ersatz victim group.

19 posted on 08/04/2005 9:32:06 AM PDT by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: beeler

I think this will be properly addressed at the hearings, probably by Brownback or Santorum asking him this question. (hopefully)


20 posted on 08/04/2005 9:32:45 AM PDT by gopwinsin04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib

"Sounds like a classic "divide-and-conquer" tactic to me as well."


The WINNAH!!!


21 posted on 08/04/2005 9:33:56 AM PDT by Maria S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: gopwinsin04

It warms my cockles to think that we are about to get another damn blue blood marginal conservative who suddenly goes liberal upon becoming a Justice. END HEAVY SARCASM!


22 posted on 08/04/2005 9:34:57 AM PDT by conservativecorner (It's a cult of death and submission to fanatics Larry!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beeler

You work in a law office and are the acknowledged expert on Supreme Court arguments. A colleague asks you to look over their briefs. You expect to continue working at the firm. What would you do? I think the MSM is overstating his participation in this case to split the right.


23 posted on 08/04/2005 9:36:02 AM PDT by sharkhawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

(Can you imagine that, if the plaintiffs in a gay rights case had approached then-Professor Scalia for his assistance, he would have agreed to help out pro bono? I can't.)

Neither can I.

24 posted on 08/04/2005 9:37:00 AM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gopwinsin04

In most cases, making a buck engenders the greatest loyalty in America. Attorneys are not immune from this principle (tongue in cheek). When freed from the reigns of "buckmaking," it indeed will be interesting to see where Roberts comes down.

Anyone who thinks they know the answer is blowing smoke. We won't know until the decisions are made. Conservatives have been burned too many times in the past. That's not being cynical, it's being realistic.


25 posted on 08/04/2005 9:37:03 AM PDT by Paraclete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner

This has just assured that the hearings will be must see TV.


26 posted on 08/04/2005 9:37:06 AM PDT by gopwinsin04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

Great point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


27 posted on 08/04/2005 9:39:35 AM PDT by conservativecorner (It's a cult of death and submission to fanatics Larry!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Paraclete

I don't think anyone can really know until we see Roberts make a comment at the hearings., I seriously doubt he will talk to about this to the press.


28 posted on 08/04/2005 9:39:55 AM PDT by gopwinsin04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: gopwinsin04

No one in America has done more to advance the pro commie pro sodomite agenda than the 'Slimes' group...

Simply divide and conquer..


29 posted on 08/04/2005 9:41:08 AM PDT by joesnuffy (Save the whales. Redeem them for valuable prizes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gopwinsin04
A partner at Roberts firm was working with the plaintiffs in Romer; and the parter asked for Roberts help

How is this pro bono? His firm is being paid.

30 posted on 08/04/2005 9:41:35 AM PDT by bird4four4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bird4four4

My guess is that Roberts the was only one at the firm with experience of arguing cases before the highest court in the land.


31 posted on 08/04/2005 9:44:13 AM PDT by gopwinsin04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Paraclete

We'll know real quick so far as this topic goes. The Supreme Court will be hearing the challenge to Don't Ask Don't Tell next session.


32 posted on 08/04/2005 9:45:55 AM PDT by AntiGuv (reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
It would seem that in defending John Roberts involvement in this case, many FReepers are either forgetting or overlooking the facts.

After various Colorado municipalities passed ordinances banning discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing, employment, education, public accommodations, health and welfare services, and other transactions and activities, Colorado voters adopted by statewide referendum "Amendment 2" to the State Constitution, which precludes all legislative, executive, or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect the status of persons based on their "homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships." Respondents, who include aggrieved homosexuals and municipalities, commenced this litigation in state court against petitioner state parties to declare Amendment 2 invalid and enjoin its enforcement. The trial court's grant of a preliminary injunction was sustained by the Colorado Supreme Court, which held that Amendment 2 was subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it infringed the fundamental right of gays and lesbians to participate in the political process. On remand, the trial court found that the Amendment failed to satisfy strict scrutiny. It enjoined Amendment 2's enforcement, and the State Supreme Court affirmed.

The people of Colorado voted down special rights for homosexuals. The courts overturned the vote of the people of Colorado. IMHO, that is unconstitutional.

33 posted on 08/04/2005 9:46:25 AM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: bird4four4

When a firm works pro-bono, they do not get paid by the client. However, if they win the case, the losing party often myst pay the legal fees of the case; this is especially true when suing the govt.. The firm was paid by the state govt. for expenses (including lawyer fees).


34 posted on 08/04/2005 9:46:51 AM PDT by reallygone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: perez24
Why do I have the suspicion that this is an attempt to get conservatives to oppose the nomination?

1. Because it is.

2. When leftists start pointing this out, simply turn right around and say, "Then this means he isn't a rabid conservative like liberals have insisted and you oppose him merely because you hate President Bush."

35 posted on 08/04/2005 9:47:00 AM PDT by krazyrep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: brooklyn dave
Yes, the dobsonites will scream over this one.

Actually, the folks who will be upset here are the folks who give a d##n about whether judges should just make up rights and put them in the Constitution. The Romer case was one of the extreme acts of judicial activism by the Supremes in the past 50 years. Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas dissented to the decision.

36 posted on 08/04/2005 9:47:52 AM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: gopwinsin04

The pushers of this line do not understand what really good lawyers do. It is not about personal philosophy, it is not about religious philosophy, it is not about utopian ambitions you want to use "the law" to achieve. It's about the case - what does the law say, what does the law require, what is the extent and the limits of the applicability of the law, what is possible to expect under the law and what is not. Those are the questions that lawyers working on appeals pour over and disect - not social philosophy.


37 posted on 08/04/2005 9:48:06 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sharkhawk
You work in a law office and are the acknowledged expert on Supreme Court arguments. A colleague asks you to look over their briefs. You expect to continue working at the firm.

I can assure you that the 'acknowledged expert on supreme court arguments' at a firm is in no danger of losing his job over a principled refusal to do pro-bono work on a horrible constitutional precedent.

38 posted on 08/04/2005 9:50:37 AM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
It would seem that in defending John Roberts involvement in this case, many FReepers are either forgetting or overlooking the facts.

You are right - many are.

One of the upteen other threads on this subject had more details regarding this. the argument had more to do with the specific wording of the amendment, rather than the issue of homosexual rights (or whatever).

Improperly worded amendments are worth about as much as unconstitutional ones. Just because you agree with a particular amendment does not mean it can not be struck down for legitimate reasons.

39 posted on 08/04/2005 9:50:49 AM PDT by Gabz (Smoking ban supporters are in favor of the Kelo ruling.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

Like someone already said, this sounds like a friendly gesture to a buddy at the firm, not a lot more.


40 posted on 08/04/2005 9:51:45 AM PDT by gopwinsin04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: msnimje
That also means that a GAY landlord cannot keep Heterosexual people from renting an apartment.

A gay landlord SHOULD be able to refuse housing to heteros. Anything else is an indefensible abridgement of the gay's property rights, as in Kelo vs. New London.

41 posted on 08/04/2005 9:51:55 AM PDT by Sloth (History's greatest monsters: Hitler, Stalin, Mao & Durbin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: sharkhawk
How does "the splitting the right" do any good for the left on this issue?

If Roberts' name is withdrawn, which Bush will almost certainly refuse to do, he would likely be replaced by an even more conservative nominee who would ultimately be confirmed. That won't help the left.

I can't see Bush withdrawing Roberts' name, and I can't see any Republican senators withholding their support. If anything, this latest disclosure has greased Roberts' nomination by softening opposition among liberal Democrats. Today the left has one more reason to be confident that Roberts will drive left just as Kennedy and Souter did.

If we end up with another Souter, it will be despite repeated clear warnings from a few discerning conservatives.

The last thing I want to mention here is the ludicrous posturing of this work as pro bono work. The gay rights lobby is NOT the penniless widow on the corner facing eviction from her home. The gay rights lobby is powerful and exceptionally well-funded. This work classifies as "pro bono" only because the firm Roberts was with was simpatico with the broader social engineering goals of the left. The decision to provide pro bono assistance in this instance was for reasons of politics, not compassion.

42 posted on 08/04/2005 9:53:57 AM PDT by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: perez24
Why do I have the suspicion that this is an attempt to get conservatives to oppose the nomination?

BINGO!

43 posted on 08/04/2005 9:54:10 AM PDT by b4its2late (If at first you don't succeed, redefine success.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
Well, I've read the Romer v Evans ruling and by no stretch did it hinge on some technicality. The ruling overruled precisely what Amendment 2 was meant to accomplish.
44 posted on 08/04/2005 9:55:13 AM PDT by AntiGuv (reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: b4its2late

You're buying into an illogical argument. See #42.


45 posted on 08/04/2005 9:56:19 AM PDT by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: gopwinsin04
The interesting thing is that we should know by this time next year just how much Roberts himself believes in the arguments of Romer v Evans, because the upcoming Don't Ask Don't Tell challenge relies heavily on that ruling.
46 posted on 08/04/2005 9:56:56 AM PDT by AntiGuv (reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: msnimje

"This case has nothing to do with the inflammatory title "Homosexual Agenda"

You are very wrong. This case "established" that there is no rational reason for society to disfavor homosexuality. If Roberts voluntarily elected to assist those arguing the unconstitutionality of the Colorado amendment, we should all be concerned.


47 posted on 08/04/2005 9:58:09 AM PDT by Capt. Jake (Tar Heels against Edwards)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker
Actually, the folks who will be upset here are the folks who give a d##n about whether judges should just make up rights and put them in the Constitution. The Romer case was one of the extreme acts of judicial activism by the Supremes in the past 50 years. Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas dissented to the decision.

Thank you for your post, ModelBreaker.

Just to make sure, are you saying the 3 conservatives on the court dissented in opposition to Roberts?

48 posted on 08/04/2005 9:59:58 AM PDT by k2blader (Hic sunt dracones..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: gopwinsin04
Wow, so does this mean that Judge Roberts believes everyone deserves their day in court with adequate representation?
How Federalist of him.
49 posted on 08/04/2005 10:00:04 AM PDT by golfboy (character is doing what is right, when no one is looking)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker

I wasn't insinuating he would lose his job, but I would hate to work in an office where someone wouldn't help his partners out.


50 posted on 08/04/2005 10:01:40 AM PDT by sharkhawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-177 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson