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

Skip to comments.

Roberts Worked on Behalf of Gay Activists
Los Angeles Times ^ | August 3, 2005 | Richard A. Serrano

Posted on 08/03/2005 9:46:32 PM PDT by RWR8189

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 next last
To: 11th_VA

lol.......the way they tell it.....yes.

The lefties have gone mad. I must go check out their site for a good laugh.


21 posted on 08/03/2005 10:06:48 PM PDT by Shortstop7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: California Patriot

If you didn't know the news you are not important.


22 posted on 08/03/2005 10:08:08 PM PDT by fatima (Just for our guys and girls,Thank you all the Military .Prayers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat; holdonnow
The people that know him, back him, and I do not consider Mark Levin as a person who I should question, Mark says Roberts is a solid choice, and all this chatter is nothing but Liberal Pap in my humble opinion
23 posted on 08/03/2005 10:09:01 PM PDT by MJY1288 (Whenever a Liberal is Speaking on the Senate Floor, Al-Jazeera Breaks in and Covers it LIVE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: balch3
"But if the facts are true, it does make me think Ann Coulter was on to something about him being a closet liberal."

She said a lot; but never said he was a closet Liberal. . .or perhaps I just missed that observation.

If you have read Robert's statements. . .his philosophy; re the Law and the Constitution; you cannot attribute his decisions; to 'closet Liberalism' but rather to a committed interpretation of our Constitution.

Anne Coulter is good; but she is not political guru. . .and regardless of her interpretations; there is more than enough information re Roberts, to make a fair decision.

IMHO. ..we could not hope for a better Supreme Court Justice.

24 posted on 08/03/2005 10:12:22 PM PDT by cricket (a picture is worth a thousand words; but I don't have a picture. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

Reading the article again I find this is the one such case he's worked on, and he was a minor figure in it. If that makes him unsuitable as a Republican's choice for the court, then I give up. Ronald Reagan himself signed a law liberalizing abortion law in California when governor, and he's rightly considered a conservative icon; Roberts does research on a single pro-bono case and now he's under suspicion?


25 posted on 08/03/2005 10:12:48 PM PDT by Dr.Hilarious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat
What I am shocked about is Ann Coulter's very loud objection to the Roberts nomination. She says she doesn't know much about him., but as smart as Ann is, you would think she would ask those who do kn ow him. I'm sure Mark (F. Lee) Levin would be more than willing to share what he knows about Roberts
26 posted on 08/03/2005 10:14:06 PM PDT by MJY1288 (Whenever a Liberal is Speaking on the Senate Floor, Al-Jazeera Breaks in and Covers it LIVE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: cricket

Very well stated. If this is how far the left has to dig for SOMEthing on him, he's aces with me. (And Levin, who's my go-to guy on this, as opposed to Coulter. I love her, but she's swerving into Savage territory on this one.)


27 posted on 08/03/2005 10:14:29 PM PDT by Dr.Hilarious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: balch3
The question is, why did he take the case?

Quoting from the article:
"Roberts helped represent the gay activists as part of his law firm's pro bono work."

28 posted on 08/03/2005 10:14:54 PM PDT by Prime Choice (Thanks to the Leftists, yesterday's deviants are today's "alternate lifestyles.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

Man, I hope Ann isn't right.


29 posted on 08/03/2005 10:14:54 PM PDT by ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: California Patriot

I'd like all his records and papers released. This drip, drip, drip is ridiculous.


30 posted on 08/03/2005 10:17:10 PM PDT by StarSpangled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
Roberts as a lawyer fought for his client...imagine that

Yeah...he apparently fought for the WRONG client.

31 posted on 08/03/2005 10:19:01 PM PDT by tame (Are you willing to be as SHAMELESS for the truth as leftists are for a lie?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
I've done a fair share of reading about Roberts past and I have not found anything that would make me worry about him other than his short time on the bench. Roberts is not a small time Judge, nor a small time Litigator. The more I hear about his past, the more I like him
32 posted on 08/03/2005 10:19:06 PM PDT by MJY1288 (Whenever a Liberal is Speaking on the Senate Floor, Al-Jazeera Breaks in and Covers it LIVE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
This same LA Slimes in today's rag said Roberts was against voting rights for black people in Mississippi.

The reasoning was he didn't support some sort of Lani Guinar type majority vote nullification to entitle certain designated populations to have extra votes.

33 posted on 08/03/2005 10:22:27 PM PDT by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice

What if it had been an abortionist? Would he still have taken the case? Why or why not? Does he consider the homosexual agenda any less dangerous to our moral fiber than abortion? I'm not withdrawing support from the guy yet, but these are some questions I'd like answers to.


34 posted on 08/03/2005 10:22:39 PM PDT by balch3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Hilarious

I don't think that makes you a liberal. I agree with you. I fight against their agenda to be advanced, but we cannot fire them because they are gays. It's true that everybody has the right to do in their bedrooms what they want. The problem is when it goes OUT of their bedrooms and get to the public (including children and schools). At this point I don't think there is any discrimination. At this point they are advancing their agenda. They already won a lot of ground. I have no idea how I will raise my child to balance it out. That's why, without reading this specific case, I suspect it was not against discrimation. You know how consider everything discriminatory (like a woman saying "I am married to a wonderful man". She should say "I am married to a wonderful person". You know what happened to Will Smith's wife, right?).


35 posted on 08/03/2005 10:24:50 PM PDT by angelanddevil2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
Then a lawyer specializing in appellate work, the conservative Roberts helped represent the gay activists as part of his law firm's pro bono work.

Pro bono ( prō bō ' nō ) adj. Done without compensation for the public good

Roberts and his firm were a believer in the cause.

Let's stop the idiotic denial and admit this guy quite possibly isn't an originalist and potentially another David Souter or Sandra Day O'Connor.

There is nothing originalist about overturning sodomy laws which the originalists all supported.

36 posted on 08/03/2005 10:25:04 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tame
Yeah...he apparently fought for the WRONG client.

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV... but I do have 2 lawyers in the family, and my impression is that you do not get to pick all your own clients as an associate, or even as a junior partner. The article says he was asked to help, and he did. He did not actively seek the client, but when given the assignment, he devoted himself fully to representing the client. That makes him a man of integrity. The fact that they won the case is just another testament to the man's intellect and legal brilliance.

37 posted on 08/03/2005 10:25:41 PM PDT by CA Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky
Roberts and his firm were a believer in the cause.

This is a non-sequiter. His firm may have believed in the cause - there is nothing to indicate his beliefs on the matter one way or another.

Let's stop the idiotic denial and admit this guy quite possibly isn't an originalist and potentially another David Souter or Sandra Day O'Connor.

I'm sure you have been spouting the same line even before you knew who the nominee would be, so I won't waste effort trying to convince you otherwise. You'd better get back under the bed, the sky is falling again!

38 posted on 08/03/2005 10:30:07 PM PDT by CA Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Ann Coulter

(( ping ))


39 posted on 08/03/2005 10:30:32 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CA Conservative
I'm sure you have been spouting the same line even before you knew who the nominee would be,

Why, yes, he was.

40 posted on 08/03/2005 10:35:27 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 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