Posted on 08/04/2005 3:51:18 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Have you read the dozen or so other articles from his Reagan era work where he opposed bussing, Affirm. Action, Roe v Wade, or his later work where he opposed and ruled against the EPA, or where he took a restrictive view of the Commerce Clause, or his recent rulings where he upheld military tribunals for terrorists?
But Dog - why would a lawyer do pro-bono work for a group they should diametrically oppose? I mean, it's one thing to be on the sidelines and say "yeah, discrimination based on sexual orientation is wrong," but it's another thing to devote your time and energy pro-bono. Lawyers aren't exactly sitting around twiddling their thumbs.
The only hope is that he's refined his views over the past ten years and is more pro-family than this.
Souter and Kennedy had full-backing, too. Blind loyalty to the presidency has kept the culture of death vibrant. See "Arlen Specter outrage dissipates in afterglow of election victory."
There are lots of liberal judges "qualified" to sit on SCOTUS. That's a pretty low bar to set given the historical opportunity to undo the abuses of the activist court.
The issue is whether Judge Roberts is a strict constructionist or not. The cited case doesn't tell us anything about that, one way or the other.
The confirmation hearings should tell us what we need to know, particularly when Senator Coburn is questioning. I would pay attention to that, rather than anything coming out in the media before then.
umm come on. don't believe everything you read, especially when it so provocatively spun.
So far we've been doing nothing but trying to read dry tea leaves and look at chicken entrails to determine what this individual will do if he's confirmed. Now we have a single solid piece of evidence, AND IT'S BAD. That an attorney takes a case for a paying client and argues it says little or nothing about whether the attorney agrees with the client's position--a Democrat plumber can just as well fix a Republican's toilet without becoming a Republican.
When its pro bono, it's very different. The attorney, Roberts in this case, is giving his time. When that time and skill are given to an ideological cause, as he did here, the only reasonable conclusion is he supports that cause. What's even more disturbing is that this case overturned a popular referendum, meaning that, contrary to some of the VERY SMALL indications he's given to the contrary, he could easily be another Souter or Stevens.
This also raises a serious issue about his integrity. The Senate questionnaire he received called on him to list all pro bono cases he'd been involved in. He failed to list this one. Those who believe in judicial tooth faeries can believe he did this unintentionally.
In short, we now have a Republican nominated candidate for the Supreme Court whose greatest judicial success was acting as a pro bono stealth lawyer for homosexual activists and winning an activist decision that overturned a popular referendum. Then, when asked about his work on pro bono cases, he lied to the Senate by not disclosing this work. As far as I'm concerned, this disqualifies him for the seat, both ideologically and ethically.
If the referendum in question didn't deny the right of homosexuals to protection under the law as persons and as citizens (and I don't see how it could) than it only defined homosexuality as a distinction that wasn't accorded protection under the constitution of Colorado. This SCOTUS ruling placed homosesxuality in the same catagory of distinction as black and female.
Homosexuality is rightly viewed as a destructive behavior and the people of Colorado voted not to give this trait legal protection. Sometimes discrimination is a good thing.
OK
The committee asked for ''specific instances" in which he had performed pro bono work, how he had fulfilled those responsibilities, and the amount of time he had devoted to them.
This pretty well ices it. Even the MSM would have a hard time getting that wrong.
The lack of opposition on the left should send a chill down your spine.
"however as taken from the article the ability to deny a person housing based on sexual orientation is not a good policy to support"
Rubbish. That's an excellent policy to support. And even if a property owner doesn't support it himself, he should be free in this country to rent to whomever he feels like. Roberts should have been taking pro bono work to do things like scale back takings, to attempt to prove that rent control is unconstitutional, that sort of thing.
This is idiotic. Souter never did anything like that...and he probably benefitted from these sorts of laws.
At any rate...he is sort of saying that he was doing this because it was a client of the firm and he was obliged to help his partners. I can sort of see that point. But he could have politely declined to help his partner. I doubt his partner would help him on pro bono work for pro life charities, would he? Probably not. Pro bono can be the domain of the person working on it. Not everyone in a firm has to jump on board (although the firm does represent the clinet as a matter of ethics).
The other thing that's really disturbing is Roberts has been an active and popular member of the D. C. social scene for most of his career, one of the most corrupting things that can happen to a conservative.
duplicate:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1456604/posts?page=60
Plant story.
That is different from what you earlier posted. The request was NOT to list ALL pro bono work but "specific instances." To an honest person your phrasing was deceptive if not dishonest. Put the rail, tar and feathers away.
I think pro bono work says more about his personal philosophy. It's a positive that he ruled the way he did against the EPA and about the Commerce Clause but I admit I'm more concerned with social issues and the right of the people to determine those.
Hogan and Hartson? Hogan and Hartson?
Berger was at Hogan and Hartson. They have represented the DNC, Comunist China, Bill Clinton's Innagural Committee, John Huang...
Read about them here.
There is no ethics rule that says a lawyer must work over a morally objectionable case.
In fact it is just the opposite.
The other post does not have him doing work, only giving advice "of some kind".
For all we know his advice could have been, "down the hall to the right".
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.