Posted on 08/04/2005 7:24:32 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
The problem is that dissenting opinions are almost never referenced in Law School and hence are almost never read by law students. (The only time a dissenting opinion is read in law school is when the dissenting opinion ultimately becomes the basis for the overturning of a future case).
My experience was that you are required to read the majority opinion and understand the holding of the case and opinions like those of Scalia in this case are usually shelved until Scalia and company become the majority.
My con law professor was a commie. I had some great times going toe to toe with him in class. He was of the "living document" camp. I was of the strict constructionist camp. Hopefully someday I will have won that debate.
Aren't his children adopted?
Your arguments may be valid; however, you seemed to skip a step -how does one prove they are a protected cl;ass when the criteria is subjective and not readily apparent? It would seem that the same subjectivity would prove double edged sword -if one can claim that which is not objectively provable one can disclaim it as well; hence proving one was aware that another was a homosexual would only be proven fact if admitted as such...
Homosexuality is all about sexual activity -if one is not privy to the activity one is ignorant of the orientation...
given that Roberts was the primo appellate guy at his firm, I would imagine ALL their appellate briefs went by him for review .. but this was written solely to inflame conservatives who don't support the 'gay' agenda, to peel off support for Roberts because he once helped a team of lawyers present a case for that cause. I would like to see the entire list of cases he "worked behind the scenes" on by helping attorneys frame their arguments. This is a hit piece because they chose to focus on the one issue that would theoretically take support FROM Roberts and some conservatives are too stupid to see that.
when you READ the article you understand just how misleading the caption is .. shocking, I know! It SAYS he helped gay activists, when it was worse, much worse .. he helped lawyers!
I read all the opinions when I cite a case so I can offer an intelligent opinion and I never question whether or not the folks I'm talking with have done the same. It becomes obvious as the discussion goes on.
LOL
The state can't make a law where homosexual (orientation, conduct, practices, relationships) shall entitle HLB'S to claim (minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination.)
The state can't make a law that says Rich People get to claim discrimination based simply on their being rich.
In other words, one of the facts that proves discrimination the fact that you are Rich Man.
So, Bill Gates goes to court and says, "WalMart won't carry my new line of Dog Grooming software. It's because of discrimination."
Judge, "What facts prove that it's discrimination?"
Gates: "Well, I'm rich, and the law says that being rich means I'm a special class likely to get discriminated against."
Judge: "Why didn't you say so, my boy? In favor of Mr Gates. And WalMart, you quit discriminating."
Thanks for the info.
I appreciate the insight, thanks.
I think that the problems with the courts are easily seen in the legal assault on anti-terrorism measures.
The Congress is well aware of need to balance their decisions to protect the country with the rights of American citizens. The executive, the same. They have teams of lawyers, many are themselves lawyers, and they meticulously craft legislation to balance the danger the nation is in with the desire to have a free society. These are fairly bright people who occupy and/or work for Congress and the Executive Office.
So they pass a law.
Some ACLU lawyer disagree with it. He knows a judge in Slobovia who also disagrees with it. He files an appeal in that guy's court.
That one judge, who doesn't have a smidgen of the staff and responsibility and answerability to the public, says "this is unconstitutional." Thereby, he jeopardizes the defense of the nation.
What is the Constitutional logic that says that a lower court judge can stop an act of Congress duly signed by the President? Where does it say that? Where does it hint that that's what the Founders had in mind?
Roberts in a synonym for Souter.
Conservatives have no right to complain about what the Supreme Court does when they ignore red flags like this, drink the Kool Aid and blindly support a candidate that appears to be anything but an originalist.
What's the matter? He choose to DONATE his time to these gay activists. Pro Bono. For free. One can only assume because he believed in their cause.
It's no wonder Republicans keep winning election and very little changes. Conservatives as group don't have the backbone to demand the Republicans nominated true Scalia-like originalists to the court. Many just drink the Kool Aid, live a fantasy world and think we're winning as Bush and the Republicans sell us out.
This will stick and the Democrats withdraw any meaningful attempts to stop the nomination. Liberals now know they have another O'Connor or Souter before them.
One doesn't work pro bone (for nothing) if he or she doesn't believe in the cause. Keep drinking the Kool Aid. Unbelievable.
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.