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.

[Modernman]

In terms of the personal politics of the lawyers, my impression is most lean left as most big firm lawyers do.

I don't know if I agree as to the political leanings of big firm lawyers. It's probably a matter of personal experience.

It would be interesting to see how political donations break down by law firm. Of course, I'm to lazy to do the research.

[colorado tanker]

I have been in big firms and am familiar with many more. With rare exception the personal politics of most of the lawyers lean left and Democrat, some more than others, just as the ABA, which big firms dominate, leans left as do most law students.

I found a blog that disclosed Hogan and Hartson's PAC historically has favored the Dems but last cycle gave more to pubbies. But again, that is their public side, where they play both sides of the aisle. To find out the personal politics of the lawyers you'd have to check out their personal donations, where Roberts has always donated to Republicans.

[U.H. Conservative]

Was Roberts? I'm still confused by his answers to that question.

[U.H. Conservative]

Marlowe,
I agree with your general point of not imputing a client's position to the attorney. As a very junior associate I have often had to hold my nose on work I have been assigned.

That said, I view pro-bono work differently. Roberts was at a level where he could choose whether or not to work on the case and the other partner involved should have been familiar enough with his philosophy to know if he would be comfortable advancing a decision calling for major judicial activism.

Possibly, as others have stated, Roberts was just being courteous and the other partner did not care if he made Roberts uncomfortable. However, if Roberts was comfortable helping to advance the ideology at the basis of Romer (i.e. judges are smarter and more enlightened than the contemptible Colorado voter and should therefore make the decision), then I am very concerned.

[colorado tanker]

I don't think Roberts has ever answered the question as to the Federalist Society, and I have the vague recollection he may have said he didn't pay dues. OTOH, the fact he was in the Washington directory tells me they considered him to be one of them.

Hopefully it never will be clear, because just as if, say, he were to be discovered to be a FReeper, if he says he's a member of the Federalists, the MSM will claim he agrees with everything they've ever published and as I understand it they're a pretty decentralized group.

[jude24]

Claims of discrimination are based upon protected status, which is a statutory right and not a constitutional right.

That's not true; claims of discrimination do not require a protected class, e.g. optometrists and optecians in Williamson v. Lee Optical. Indeed, it would be strange indeed if homosexuals had fewer rights against discrimination than opticians did.

Nowhere in the constitution is there any guarantee of non-discrimination, especially as it relates to behavior.

Equal protection clause.

Again jude, did you think this way before you entered law school, or is this something that you picked up along the way?

It's not relevant when I began to hold this position. The merits of my argument exist whether or not I held them as an undergrad. Furthermore, legal opinions I held before I studied in law school should be highly suspect anyway. I doubt if I would have understood Romer - or even would have read it - without learning something about Constitutional Law. Still, if you asked me before law school whether homosexuals had a right not to be discriminated against, and a right to have the government enforce that right, I suspect that I would have agreed with that point then.

[jude24]

In this case it appears quite likely that Roberts was asked to review some of the work done by other memebers of his firm and he did it and made suggestions on how to best represent "the client" in court.

As I was driving to a little trail where I run, I had the radio tuned to NPR. They were discussing this more fully, and explained that his assistance was basically asking questions Scalia would in order to prepare the associate who was actually going up in front of the Supreme Court.

In other words, it looks like he may have been the conservative go-to-guy.

[U.H. Conservative]

Oh I agree being a Federalist can mean many things. At our school, it was mainly Libertarian and the conservatives ran the Republican Club. I'm sure it's different at other schools and in the Lawyers Chapters as well.

[U.H. Conservative]

Good. If the questions that come out of the initial story turn out to generate answers that shore up his constitutionalism, more's the better.

I think the reason that there is such concern is that once he's appointed, that it. There can;t really be trust but verify in the case of a lifetime appointment. It's more a thing of "trust and pray."

Of course, if we could ever get the Senate to impeach overreaching judges, then I think people wold have a lot more latitude. I also like proposals for either limited terms or retention elections like we have here in CA (and in which Janice Rogers Brown whooped butt!)

[MikefromOhio]

and and your homepage is BORING.

So I guess what I have on my homepage determines how mature I am or am not?

Wow and you wonder why some younger individuals are COMPLETELY turned off by some "Conservatives".

And Anorexic Ann needs a couple dozen donuts quickly.

[little jeremiah]

Even Peter denied knowing Christ three times... Those of us who want to be faithful to God will, I believe, need to pray for the strength, determination, and desire to serve God, ever more strongly.

Who knows what the future holds? I sure don't. But the present isn't pointed in a good direction.

[U.H. Conservative]

Although I have no problem with your home page, it's kind of a pathetic indictment of young people that they need such a page to be interested in conservatism. Personally, having come to conservatism during college, I have a higher opinion of younger folks.

[Sam Hill]

"COMPLETELY turned off by some "Conservatives".

And Anorexic Ann..."

You're doing your part, that's for sure.

[Sam Hill]

"Personally, having come to conservatism during college, I have a higher opinion of younger folks."

Me too.

And who in the conservative sphere has done more to attract "young people" to the cause than Coulter?

(I mean of course besides Mike and his great graphics of people pissing, etc.)

[P-Marlowe]

Indeed, it would be strange indeed if homosexuals had fewer rights against discrimination than opticians did.

Are you crazy?

Jude, homosexuality is a behavior. Being an optician is a profession. But the fact of the matter is that you can discriminate against some professions. You can discriminate against prostitutes, can you not? IMO homosexuals should have no more rights or priviledges than prostitites as both classifications are based upon sexual BEHAVIOR. Is that lost upon you?

Equal protection clause.

The Equal protection clause was not intended to protect deviant sexual behavior. If it was, then prostitution would be as protected as marriage. Is that what the drafters intended?

It's not relevant when I began to hold this position. The merits of my argument exist whether or not I held them as an undergrad.

Jude, law school is a three year exercise in liberal indoctrination and brainwashing. It is relevant. I was constantly bombarded with these same idiotic liberal ideas from nearly every one of my professors. I had to learn to think like them in order to ensure that my grades were good. But I did not let it infect my moral standards or my dedication to the principles of constitutional fundamentalism. I actually left law school more of a conservative than before I went in. I saw first hand the damage that can be done through the marriage of socialism and constitutional legal theory.

[StLouisJoe]

Love your homepage!

Don't let them get you down, question everything!

O-H !

[U.H. Conservative]

"Jude, law school is a three year exercise in liberal indoctrination and brainwashing. It is relevant. I was constantly bombarded with these same idiotic liberal ideas from nearly every one of my professors."

As a graduate of USD, I take umbrage at the remark. It is one of the few campuses where there are a decent number of conservative faculty.

I realize we're an aberration but I must stick up for my alma mater.

Curiosity's sake: Where'd you go?

[Sam Hill]

"Don't let them get you down, question everything!"

Except Supreme Court nominees--according to Mike.

[xzins]

The proper way to get through classes with subject matter that you morally object to is that tried and true passage: "The author says....."blah, blah, blah..."

It's the regurgitation process. You never have to say what you believe. Others can assume what they wish.

So far as the case you mentioned before (you posted the text.) Can you spell out for me the part you found objectionable and put it in folk talk and not legal talk?

Thanks.