Posted on 08/03/2005 9:46:32 PM PDT by RWR8189
WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. worked behind the scenes for a coalition of gay-rights activists, and his legal expertise helped them persuade the Supreme Court to issue a landmark 1996 ruling protecting people against discrimination because of their sexual orientation.
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. While he did not write the legal briefs or argue the case before the Supreme court, he was instrumental in reviewing the filings and preparing oral arguments, according to several lawyers intimately involved in the case.
The coalition won its case, 6-3, in what gay activists described at the time as the movement's most important legal victory. The three dissenting justices were those to whom Roberts is frequently likened for their conservative ideology -- Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Roberts' role working on behalf of gay 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.
There is no other record of Roberts being involved in gay-rights cases that would suggest his position on such issues. He has stressed, however, that a client's views are not necessarily shared by the lawyer who argues on his or her behalf.
The lawyer who asked for his help on the case, Walter A. Smith Jr., then-head of the pro bono department at Hogan & Hartson, said Roberts didn't hesitate.
"He said, `Let's do it.' And it's illustrative of his open-mindedness, his fair-mindedness. He did a brilliant job," Smith said.
Roberts did not mention his work on the gay-rights case in his 67-page response to a Senate
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Why are you speaking as if it was his decision to take the case?
My question is how do gay activists qualify for pro bono assistance? I'm always told that gays are affluent and that advertisers are always targeting them, etc. because of their money. Here they got free legal help from a big time Washington DC law firm.
"The generally accepted notion that the court can only hear roughly 150 cases each term gives the same sense of reassurance as the adjournment of the court in July, when we know the Constitution is safe for the summer," he quipped. John Roberts circa April 1983
16 posted on 07/27/2005 6:38:17 PM CDT by jwalsh07
Some conservative commentators are not smart enough to believe about something this complicated. But I think Mark Levin is. However, I'm still disturbed by the fact that Roberts took this gay-rights case. It doesn't tell us what he really believes about the issue, or even the courts' role in it. But it does suggest that he's very cautious, at best, about drawing lines in the sand if he thinks it would hurt his career.
Oh shit!
Don't tell Anne.
Next he'll be looking to build a "legacy" as one of the "philosopher kings". I think Coulter has him pegged as another Souter.
Beats me. Why don't you ask him?
Divide and conquer???
MSM is blowing things out of proportion again.
IF you read the rest of the article, you find he gave them a couple of pieces of general advice and did a dry run with them, in preparation. That's it.
The lead attorney in the case went to Roberts, and she is recounting what he said and did:
"He said you have to be able to count and know where your votes are coming from. And the other was that you absolutely have to be on top of why and where and how the state court had ruled in this case," Dubofsky said.
She said Roberts served on a moot court panel as they prepared for oral arguments in the case, taking the role of a Scalia-like justice in peppering her with tough questions. And when Dubofsky appeared before the justices, Scalia did indeed demand specific legal citations from the lower court ruling. "I had it right there at my fingertips," she said.
Dubofsky said Roberts helped her form the argument that the initiative was illegal because it violated the "equal protections" clause of the Constitution."
Hi tame. So it comes to this, it seems. "Conservatives" supporting the homoactivist agenda..
Hope you don't mind the ping.
I was wondering what the folks on your list think of this.
Strategery...
Hi, there, blader! Well, this does cause some concern, doesn't it? I hope Roberts lays our concerns to rest after he's confirmed.
Still, I wonder if Thomas or Scalia did anything like this?
Same here!!
No doubt he'll be confirmed. Still, this gives me the heebie-jeebies..
I wonder if Thomas or Scalia did anything like this?
Good question. I suspect not but am open to being proved wrong.
Those six justices would have ruled the way they did even if Mickey Mouse gave the advice instead of attorney Roberts.
She is not.
I always appreciate alerts - been very busy the last few days, I'll read this and likely ping it out later...
L.A. Times hit piece, trying to split conservatives.
Ask your president.
This guy had great answers in his questionnare to Congress.
While this is something to watch in case he took this case because he believed in it for real, I do not think there is evidence this guy would be pro-gay.
Nothing that is really worrisome has come out.
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.