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 ...
Given that Roberts was 41 at the time, I seriously doubt his beliefs have changed since he choose to donate his time to aid the cause of homosexual activists.
Response: One can be certain of one thing that once on the court this man shall continue the policy of harming The Republic(at least what remains of The Republic!)
Comment: What is worse is the fact that the leadership inflicts harm quite innocently and in good conscience. They even think they are doing well.
That being stated, we now know his record -- he is gay rights activist's best friend.
Roberts, meanwhile, has implied he'll honor precedent. Given his association with gay rights activists, I believe he is telling the truth.
Did respect the Constitution when he worked to overturn the Colorado law in question, which was perfectly Constitutional?
The Founders, who wrote the Constitution, believed homosexuality was a crime. So, the idea that a private business owner or landlord must associate with a homosexual is hogwash.
NO ONE has a right to a job at privately-owned business or has the right to rent someone else's property. No such right exists in the Constitution.
He worked for FREE for gay activists, helping them overturn a perfectly Constitutional law that Justices Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist voted to uphold.
No, this development will make it easier for Roberts to be confirmed. The Democrats will likely not put up any serious opposition now that they know a gay rights legal pioneer will be sitting on the Supreme Court.
There were plenty of judges -- Janice Rogers Brown, Edith Hollan Jones, Michael Littig -- that are known originalists with a paper trial to back it up. There was no excuse with a Republican in the White House and 55 Republicans in the Senate for an ally of gay rights activists to be nominated.
Exactly. But, why are so many living in a fantasy world of denial about the fact the Bush just gave us the legal counsel for a group of gay rights activists?
Choosing to donate one's time for FREE to gay rights activists tells us nothing about where Roberts stands on gay rights issues? Are you serious? What flavor of Kool Aid are you drinking?
Voters in about a dozen states amended their state constitutions last year to limit marriage to one man and one women. In other words, they said no to gay "marriage". Are all those newly adopted amendments unconstitutional under your reading of the 14th amendment?
I have to agree that this news is very worrisome.
Stop making sense! Have the decency to stop assaulting freepers with facts and logic about Roberts' voluntary choice to help a leftist lawsuit that promoted a radical gay-rights agenda. So will you please show us the courtesy of not mentioning these fact, and let us all go back to dozing? Do something productive like turn on Rush and turn off your mind -- he'll entertain you by making fun of liberals and assuring you that Roberts is a fine choice, gay-help story is an outrage (that it was brought up), and there's nothing to see here, move on. In short, drink your GOP cool-aid, sit down, and shut up.
Sounds like the firm of Hogan and Hartson was doing the Pro Bono. Roberts an employee of the firm was doing what his employer wanted.
Facts and Logic: Roberts worked for Hogan and Hartson. It was Hogan and Hartson that offered the work Pro Bono.
As an attorney, I must LMAO.
Roberts was a partner and one of the top appellate lawyers in the country. He had a choice.
That said, more needs to be learned of his actual work and role on the case.
"Someone with his stature wouldn't have to take on a pro-bono project like this unless he wanted to"
Please read the article .. he did NOT take on this pro bono case, the firm he was with at the time did. It's a HUGE, 1000 attorney firm. They have a department devoted to pro bono work of all kinds. It's pretty much a requirement of large firms in D.C. to have a pro bono department. Roberts was their top appellate guy who most likely reviewed everything that was going to the Supreme Court. He would advise the firm's lawyers on how to write a winning brief, how to argue successfully .. much like a law school professor teaches whomever is in his class. By this reasoning, Bork should have been excluded from the SC on the grounds that he taught Bill and Hillary Clinton.
This story is so slanted it makes me angry but conservatives have an obligation to understand more than what the MSM is feeding them, and how easily they will bolt from a candidate based on a LAT/Baltimore Sun article is pretty discouraging.
Hogan and Hartson has over 500 partners. Hogan and Hartson is so big that they have a pro bono group within the law firm.
It is the law firm of Hogan and Hartson and a consensus of the 500+ partners in that firm who decide what Pro Bono work is done by the firm.
The then-head of the pro bono group of Hogan and Hartson asked Roberts with all of his appellate experience to review the filings. Roberts obliged. There are many possible reasons why Roberts did so including the reason of loyalty to the law firm that he worked for.
The title of this article is misleading. All to many on this thread are all to eager to be mislead.
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.