Posted on 08/03/2005 9:46:32 PM PDT by RWR8189
which is why I question this story.
The MSM would work overtime to keep this secret so as to support their homo-advocacy.
It just seems very odd that this is comming out NOW and comming out from other lawyers.
I would also like to know if he would respect the second amendment as an individual right.
I think it is prudent for us to ask questions since we have been burned before by other nominiees.
The article does not say he took the case, only that he advised those who did.
The advise could have been red lining the pleadings or simply telling the arguing lawyer about the judges.
I suspect this is more a poison pill article than substance. Who leaked this? Disclosing the nature and content of support would seem to violate attorney client privelege.
Who benefits by leaking this?
Those seeking to divide his supporters in order to kill the nomination.
I agree it's bad news. It may be that he will be against us more than 10% of the time. But I am an incurable optimist. I still expect him to be between Rehnquist (90% conservative) and Scalia (98%). (I have been watching the Court since the Rehnquist/Scalia nominations in '86.) Roberts was helping the left on that case, even though he knew himself that, if push came to shove, he would vote the other way. Am I convincing?
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
Another article about the Roberts pro bono "gay" rights case. FYI.
What do I know?
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
"There is nothing originalist about overturning sodomy laws which the originalists all supported."
This case had nothing to do with sodomy laws.
Well, Thomas was chief of the EEOC. I wonder if even one decision ever came out during his tenure that was supportive of a gay person's claim. I'd be surprised if there wasn't. Would that have made Thomas unfit?
I have read the full article and do believe this is a reason for concern (of course, he will be confirmed anyway). In 1996 (perhaps the prep work and argument were in 1995?)Roberts was 39 years old (?) and presumably a partner in the firm, not some kid associate who would feel compelled to work on something that he had moral reservations about. And for what it's worth, I have been at four law firms and I have not seen the kind of pressure that would require an attorney to work on a pro bono case regarding which he had strong moral reservations.
Roberts was apparently doing pro bono work for the gay "rights" group, which seems to be a BIG difference in itself.
ummmmmm Ann IS a political guru LOL just that one correction, no offense intended. But she is brilliant and has either a Masters or PHD, (can't remember) in the field.
Think about this. How does it help the left to kill the nomination of a nominee who has pledged to uphold Roe v. Wade and who provided key assistance to the powerful gay rights lobby in winning one of its most significant victories in the past two decades? If Roberts' name is withdrawn, who is Bush likely to nominate that will please the left even more?
"apparently doing pro bono work for the gay "rights" group"
I would recommend that you hold your fire until you have way more facts than were presented in this article.
By claiming it is a "civil rights" issue. False, but that's how they get free court time and atty's
Good Point!!
Roe v. Wade and gay rights are not at the top of my list of priorities...........I'm more concerned about property rights and the 2nd Amendment among other things.
No true originalist would side with gay activists to overturn Constitutional passed laws by a state.
Bork him!!
He fought so that a Mom and Pop would be forced to rent their innocent little Bed and Breakfast to some sickos.
Go Schumer. Go Kennedy. Bork him!!
Scalia, in a blistering dissent joined by Rehnquist and Thomas, said that "Coloradans are entitled to be hostile toward homosexual conduct."
Now that is the kind of Supreme Court nominee that we need.
I afraid Scalia and Thomas will be the last of their kind on the Supreme Court.
Republicans don't have the guts to nominate true conservatives to the bench.
It's quite possible. Logically, it doesn't matter if Roberts sympathizes with the gay-rights agenda or not.
If he's willing to keep the courts from advancing it, that's fine with me. However, the litigation he helped with was aimed at precisely that. If Roberts thought these clients were seeking an illegitimate ruling, he should have stayed out of the case. It's not like he was some vulnerable young kid just out of law school. Roberts could have taken a stand against this abuse of the process, and he chose not to. So either he is insufficiently principled, or he actually believed in the merits of the gays' lawsuit, which were zero. Distressing.
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.