Roberts helped gay-rights activists win landmark ruling

Los Angeles Times ^ | August 4, 2005 | Richard A. Serrano

[joeu]

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.

[Past Your Eyes]

That should bring Ted Kennedy right on board.

[MBB1984]

This is scary. It is especially troublesome that it was pro bono work and that he apparently volunteered to some extent his services.

[wardaddy]

wonderful

[Varda]

"Shannen Coffin, a Catholic friend of Roberts and a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Bush administration, predicted Roberts would “separate personal philosophy from legal philosophy. Being Catholic, I don’t think, affects him any more than if he’s Hindu."

Ann Coulter may be right on this guy.

[conservativecorner]

We are scr-wed once again BUMP!!

[M. Espinola]

This is very disturbing news concerning a guy that is supposed to be a 'conservative'. Here we go again....

[J. L. Chamberlain II]

Told ya!

[Little Wharvey Gal voice] He's a Souter!

J

[ConsentofGoverned]

"This is very disturbing news concerning a guy that is supposed to be a 'conservative'. Here we go again...."

I would be much happier if he had not added his legal skills to this case..however as taken from the article the ability to deny a person housing based on sexual orientation is not a good policy to support..if "correct "that the case was one allowing this type of discrimination I am not concerned as in fairness it is consistent with other anti discrimination laws.

I oppose the radical gay agenda on most levels (marriage, adoption,expressing open sexual orientation in military, lack of laws controlling sexual behavior in relation to transmission of disease such as hiv and the right of organizations to restrict membership based on above) Housing is a basic human need and should be free to all who respect the property of a rental owner.

Lets hope Roberts is as conservative as we have been told.

I do not want another souter.

[HarleyLady27]

This should make the whinning libs all run up to Roberts and kiss and hug him......

[Dog]

Get your knickers untwisted .....we will find out he did this pro-bono work for numerous people and groups.

So calm down and BREATHE!!!!

[Dog]

He is not a Souter..show me one of his rulings that make you think that.

[Varda]

Looks to me that Roberts took the side of people who overturned the will of the people in a"statewide referendum". Sexual orientation is not a protected class of people except by judicial fiat.

U.S. Supreme Court
ROMER v. EVANS, ___ U.S. ___ (1996)

ROY ROMER, GOVERNOR OF COLORADO, ET AL. PETITIONERS v. RICHARD G. EVANS
ET AL.

Argued October 10, 1995
Decided May 20, 1996

After various Colorado municipalities passed ordinances banning discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing, employment, education, public accommodations, health and welfare services, and other transactions and activities, Colorado voters adopted by statewide referendum "Amendment 2" to the State Constitution, which precludes all legislative, executive, or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect the status of persons based on their "homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships." Respondents, who include aggrieved homosexuals and municipalities, commenced this litigation in state court against petitioner state parties to declare Amendment 2 invalid and enjoin its enforcement. "
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=U10179

[Dog]

Ann Coulter may be right on this guy.

She is not right about this guy....just because he isn't a flamethrower doesn't mean he isn't qualified to sit on SCOTUS.

[verity]

He will be confirmed. Your worst fears will be realized.
;-)

[Varda]

He may be qualified to sit on SCOTUS but so were Ginsberg and Souter.

I'm still undecided on this guy, perhaps you could tell me what he's done that makes you his advocate here.

[Dog]

He has the full backing of the President....that is good enough for me.

[ConsentofGoverned]

"Looks to me that Roberts took the side of people who overturned the will of the people in a"statewide referendum". Sexual orientation is not a protected class of people except by judicial fiat."

from the RomervEvans:
It imposes a broad disability upon those persons alone, forbidding them, but no others, to seek specific legal protection from injuries caused by discrimination in a wide range of public and private transactions. Pp. 4-9.

(b) In order to reconcile the Fourteenth Amendment's promise that no person shall be denied equal protection with the practical reality that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, the Court has stated that it will uphold a law that neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class so long as the legislative classification bears a rational relation to some independent and legitimate legislative end. See, e.g., Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 319 -320. Amendment 2 fails, indeed defies, even this conventional inquiry. First, the amendment is at once too narrow and too broad, identifying persons by a single trait and then denying them the possibility of protection across the board. This disqualification of a class of persons from the right to obtain specific protection from the law is unprecedented and is itself a denial of equal protection in the most literal sense.

Seems our laws and courts should try to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority..I have mixed feelings on this issue ..the people voted on it but was the way the referendum written a wise one - may I even suggest it was set up to fail in court- as conservatives we must support private property rights but we must be smart also in not letting our opponents set us up with poorly designed referendums.??

[unlearner]

"Housing is a basic human need and should be free to all who respect the property of a rental owner."

So you don't think a private property owner should be able to refuse to rent to a homosexual "couple".

I disagree.

Many communities designate their properties as "single-family" residences - which prohibits such a living arrangement (along with others).

This comes down to community standards. We do not need federal laws that open property owners to legal attacks for exercising their rights of property ownership and free association.

Applying the same logic, even pedophiles have the "basic human need" of a place to live. Well that doesn't mean it is my job to provide for their needs.

[ConsentofGoverned]

"Many communities designate their properties as "single-family" residences - which prohibits such a living arrangement (along with others)."

the above is OK with me..I am just saying why not use that law and apply it equally to all..seems it would restrict all who did not rent as a single family, a law applied to all is OK with me. we do not disagree..