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 ...
About the possibility that Thomas might have ruled in favor of a gay party at EEOC -- that's an apples-and-oranges comparison. It is completely possible that a gay might have a valid, factually sustained complaint under federal law. The Supreme Court ruling was a gross misinterpretation of the Constitution -- a terrible example of judicial activism -- and Roberts helped to bring it about.
If that's true, I'll back off a little from what I've said. I'd like to know if it's really true. If it is, then the fact that Roberts played only a secondary role becomes relevant.
Hey, stop spouting common sense. Don't you know we're not supposed to exercise critical, independent judgment when it comes to this nominee? You'll find Bushbots continuing to rationalize for Roberts even if he votes to strike down traditional marriage laws. Rush will be saying that all the controversy over the decision "is designed to split conservatives", and we'll be told to pay no attention to the facts, but move on.
"No true originalist would side with gay activists to overturn Constitutional passed laws by a state."
Well, you're changing your argument that I was responding to in 66, but OK.
In my opinion "originalist" refers to Judges, not advocates. An advocate advocates the case of a client to the best of his ability, using all his or her powers. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what that person's judicial philosophy would be.
I'll tell you flat out, and I guess you'll just have to take my word for it. I am a lawyer, and if I were a Supreme Court justice, I would be exactly like you would wish. I have also taken positions as an attorney that I assume you would be opposed to. So no judgeship for me?
"It is completely possible that a gay might have a valid, factually sustained complaint under federal law."
I don't see how -- there's no federal statutory protection for gays. Now a gay black man might have a valid complaint based on his race, not his gayness. But I bet there were plenty of people in the EEOC who were doing what they could do to extend protections based on gayness, despite no statutory authority.
"The Supreme Court ruling was a gross misinterpretation of the Constitution -- a terrible example of judicial activism -- and Roberts helped to bring it about."
Yes it was, and in some way, yes he did. It still tells us absolutely nothing about his judicial philosophy. That is much more clear to me after reading the "french fry" case.
I agree that it's proof of nothing, let alone his judicial philosophy. However, it is one disturbing piece in an otherwise good overall picture. It suggests that there may be some more disturbing pieces. We shall see.
Don't misread me here (!). . .I love Anne; buy her books; wish she had her own show on Fox. . .
But really; 'Maha-annie' does not work :^) (and she would hate that anyway. . .)
I would recommend that you should not discourage addressing these important questions. Asking important questions does not equal "open fire".
BINGO! severely distressing, indeed.
In fairness, it would be worth knowing whether there was an expectation that lawyers in this firm would help with whatever they were asked to help with.
"I agree that it's proof of nothing, let alone his judicial philosophy. However, it is one disturbing piece in an otherwise good overall picture. It suggests that there may be some more disturbing pieces. We shall see."
agreed
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.