Roberts worked for gay rights activists

The Baltimore Sun ^ | 8/4/05 | Richard Serrano

[conserv13]

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 private lawyer in Washington specializing in appellate work, Roberts helped represent the gay activists as part of his pro bono work at his law firm. He did not write the legal briefs or argue the case before the high court; he was instrumental in reviewing the filings and preparing oral arguments, several lawyers intimately involved in the case said.

[MikefromOhio]

hehe

LOL

believe me I wouldnt have gotten into the beauty school in the first place :)

[verity]

You are a good man, Mike.

[MikefromOhio]

heh...

well thanks :)

I am sure there are some on this thread that will disagree though....

[verity]

In the diplomatic style of John Bolton, "screw 'em". LOL

[Antoninus]

That's not uncommon at a law firm. The subject-matter of the case was probably irrelevant to him. He just gave advice to a colleague based on his years of experience arguing before the Supreme Court.

That's the hope. Forgive me for having my ... cough, Souter, cough ... doubts.

[xzins]

With all the punctuation in this thing, it's a wonder they didn't get smacked by their old English teachers. There's mischief in the modifiers and chaos in the commas. I read it saying that homosexual ORIENTATION can't be the basis of a claim for minority status or discrimination. Which part did you object to?

Neither the State of Colorado,
through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts,

shall enact,
adopt or enforce

any statute,
regulation, ordinance or policy

whereby

homosexual,
lesbian or bisexual

orientation,
conduct,practices or relationships

shall constitute
or otherwise be the basis of or entitle

any person
or class of persons

to have
or claim

any minority status,
quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination.

This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing.

[Modernman]

Lawyers, I would think as a rule (but I could be wrong here), only accept pro bono constitutional cases when they agree with the desired outcome. No?

At a large law firm (and Hogan & Hartson is a very large law firm) pro bono matters are brought in by various attorneys. My firm does a lot of pro bono work and we represent very liberal, very conservative and non-political groups pro bono.

There is no indication that Roberts was the one who brought this case in to Hogan as a pro bono matter.

[U.H. Conservative]

"Roberts would have had very little say in whether to take pro bono work accepted by another partner."

True but as a partner himself, he would have say on whether he worked with the other partner on that case. We must remember, as you note, that Roberts was one of the top appellate lawyers in the country. IT is hard to believe that he could not have said, "I disagree with this case. I would prefer not to participate in it."

[BikerNYC]

That's not uncommon at a law firm. The subject-matter of the case was probably irrelevant to him. He just gave advice to a colleague based on his years of experience arguing before the Supreme Court.

Particularly if gay collegues who may have been spearheading the effort came to him for advice on the case.

[U.H. Conservative]

The people of the State of Colorado evidently determined that the issue of homosexual conduct was the employer/landlord's business. You may disagree. Fine. Fight it out in the political arena. By defending Romer, you say that it is the job of the most unaccountable branch of government to decide these issues. That is a frightening judicial philosophy.

[U.H. Conservative]

To my understanding Roberts did not being the case to his firm. I believe the concern arises that once the case was there, however, he decided to associate himself with it instead of politely begging off. It is not as if he was some first year associate who must be three feet in the air before someone even thinks the word "Jump."

[republicofdavis]

You know, all people of good conscience should be revolted by that story. Those on the left would burst an artery if this was being done to someone on their side. So I will patiently wait for them to denounce this tactic by the NYT.

Do I hear crickets?

[RGSpincich]

He was the person/partner in charge of the appellate division and,thus, responsible for anything put forth by that branch of the firm. He did not shirk his responsibility to the firm to suit his own sensitivities.

[churchillbuff]

the left's smear tactic """

It's a "smear" only if it's not true. Is it not true that Roberts helped the gay-rights lawyers in the Romer case? If that's not true, the newspaper is going to have to issue a retraction. If it is true, then you can't call it a smear.

[colorado tanker]

Sure, he could have been a jerk to his partner and refused the courtesy of helping the lawyer prepare for oral argument before SCOTUS, something only a handful of lawyers really know how to do.

One thing I can easily see about Roberts is he isn't a jerk.

[churchillbuff]

We will soon be hearing from the "I'm never voting Republican again" crowd""""

We've already heard - in the form of your post -- from the "I won't ever question anything Bush does" crowd. And they said that humanoid robots wouldn't be developed for another 30 years! The Bushbots prove that prediction wrong.

[republicofdavis]

I acknowledged that Romer may have set the table for Lawrence. I still think that the Lawrence court would have overruled Bowers with or without Romer.

Your argument is like saying that Griswold de facto overruled state laws against abortion (or at least would be as jwalsh07 applied it to this issue). It didn't. But I acknowledge that Griswold was used to support Roe. I would bet that Roe would have existed anyway, even without Griswold. Of course, we'll never know for sure.

[BadAndy]

"You are doubting my friend. Be warned lest they brand you heretic. "

Thanks for the advice. It's lucky I didn't live during the middle ages, I would have been burned at the stake.

[RightFighter]

I don't think they meant "pro-bono". I'm pretty sure they meant that this was "pro-BONE" work.

[U.H. Conservative]

What is being a jerk? He wouldn;t have to moon the guy while doing it. One would think that Roberts' views and philosophies would be well known to the other partners. I would see the jerky behavior in coming to Roberts for help on a case you would know that he found incompatible with his philosophy.

So either the other partner was a jerk or the other partner knew that the arguments presented in Romer did not conflict with Roberts' judicial philosophy.