Posted on 08/16/2005 11:59:10 AM PDT by TBP
A conservative lobby group announced Tuesday that it is withdrawing its support from Judge John G. Roberts Jr.- President Bush's nominee to the US Supreme Court.
Public Advocate, a Virginia-based "national pro-family group", said in a statement that the more comes "as a result of Roberts' support for the radical homosexual lobby in the 1996 Supreme Court case Romer v. Evans."
Last week it was reported that Roberts had worked behind the scenes for a coalition of gay-rights groups, helping them prepare their arguments to present to the court. (story)
The groups were attempting to have the court strike down a voter-approved 1992 Colorado initiative allowing employers and landlords to exclude gays from jobs and housing.
The coalition won the case in a 6-3 decision.
At the time gay rights leaders activists described it as the movement's most important legal victory.
Public Advocate President Eugene Delgaudio will hold a news conference Wednesday on the steps of the Supreme Court to call for careful scrutiny of Roberts.
In the hours before President Bush publicly announced Roberts' nomination the President called leading fundamentalist Christians assuring them of Roberts conservative background. Indeed he was once a member of a right wing legal group in Washington - an organization that Roberts says he does not remember ever belonging to.
Roberts involvement in Romer v. Evans came while he was working at the prestigious Hogan & Hartson law firm and was part of its pro bono caseload.
Roberts was not paid for his work and he did not argue the case.
Following reports outlining the work he had done on the case several of the conservative groups that had been supportive of Roberts nomination expressed reservations, but Public Advocate is the first of the groups to officially pull its support.
Mathew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, a conservative legal group fighting LGBT rights in several states, said Roberts' involvement in the gay case is "something to certainly be concerned about." Focus on the Family also is "raising alarm bells."
In 2003 Public Advocate was instrumental in getting the Attorney General John Ashcroft to bar gay employees from holding their annual Pride event at DOJ headquarters.
The group a year later, after same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts, in a letter to Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Mark W. Everson asked the IRS to investigate same-sex couples who submit any tax form filed as "married - filing jointly". The IRS later issued a statement that submitting joint returns was illegal under the Federal Marriage Act.
Delgaudio attacked Vice President Dick Cheney last year after the vice president, when asked about gay marriage, said, "Freedom means freedom for everyone."
Old news
It's old news. I live in Virginia and I never heard of this group until they released this statement a few weeks ago.
Same thing we made of it the other numerous times it's been discussed...nothing.
The left is employing a bit of "divide and conquer" strategy.
Let's see. Prior to retirement I did mainly criminal defense. Does that mean I must believe criminals should not be charged and found guilty?
I represented them, I did not necessarily agree with them.
And no darn lawyer jokes please.
This news is so old it's not news anymore.
I think that Bush ought to withdraw Roberts' nomination because of this group withdrawing their support.
(sarcasm off)
So if you think that it's unconstitutional to pass a law permitting employers and landlords to discriminate against gays in jobs and housing, then you're "pro gay?"
Equal access to job opportunities and housing is not what I think of when I think of the "gay agenda."
More likely they are Liberals posing as conservatives hoping to confuse religious conservatives into believing the lie...
Liberals (say "Socialists") believe in Stalin's lesson:
Tell a lie often enough, it will become accepted as truth..
I mean, it's not like the Republicans are going to refuse to confirm this nomination by Bush. So this withdrawal of support has very little negative impact on confirmation, unless we get to the point where libs are fighting him hard. Perhaps this sort of sentiment from the right helps keep the crats from staking the rest of their pathetic credibility and political capital on opposing THIS nominee.
It shows that a few of us on the right are concerned that he may not be what we want, but the Democrats were not going to let Laura Ingram or Michael Luttig be confirmed, anyway.
Let's remember that he played the role of Scalia in a moot court. His wife is strongly pro-life. If he is generally a Constitutionalist and ends up upholding bans on partial birth abortion, parental notification bills, and the like, I will be pleased. If he votes to overturn Rie v. Wade OR Doe v. Bolton (health exception means any reason is a good reason for an abortion), I will be more than satisfied.
The gay rights agenda is just not as important to me as life of unborn childrem My problem with abortion is not inherently religious. It is about protecting innocent living human beings. We need to protect children now on Earth. The sinfulness of behavior may be important, but stopping murder is crucial.
Congressman Billybob
You have a point. Maybe he isn't pro gay--maybe he's just a freaking moron. After all, "free association" is an amazingly difficult concept to grasp. It takes a real Einstein.
You've been had; this group is a sham.
Just shows you that there are irrational one issue groups on the right just as there are irrational one issue groups on the left. He'll be appointed and will be a solid constitutional judge.
He did not endorse sodomy or gay marriage.
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.