Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Roberts worked for gay rights activists
The Baltimore Sun ^ | 8/4/05 | Richard Serrano

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: gay; homosexualagenda; johnroberts; roberts; romervevans; scotus; stupidsubject; ussc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340341-359 last
To: jude24; k2blader; blue-duncan; xzins
I was not critiquing the case. I was arguing for the constitutionality of the statute. But as you have so effectively shown, the statue was a piece of legislative sausage. It's constitutionality was questionable. I probably can't criticize any justice for whichever side they came down on this one. It was a clear matter of constitutional interpretation in light of the equal protection clause. I doubt that anyone needed to point to any "penumbras" to reach a decision.

And from a strictly Calvinist (and sovereign Arminian) point of view, it was THE decision that God sovereignly ordained (for good or for bad) for our country at this time.

341 posted on 08/05/2005 7:28:58 PM PDT by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: jude24

Curious. Are you pro stare decisis?


342 posted on 08/05/2005 7:28:59 PM PDT by k2blader (Hic sunt dracones..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]

To: k2blader

Starae decisis is critical. It allows contiunuity, rather than constant relitigation of an issue. Litigation has to end somewhere.


343 posted on 08/05/2005 7:30:14 PM PDT by jude24 ("Stupid" isn't illegal - but it should be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: jude24

And the first rule of holes is: keep digging. Right.


344 posted on 08/05/2005 7:31:16 PM PDT by The Red Zone (Florida, the sun-shame state, and Illinois the chicken injun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: jude24
I suppose what this comes down to is you believe homosexuality is "equally protected" under the Constitution, and I don't.

We'll just have to amicably disagree..
345 posted on 08/05/2005 7:31:58 PM PDT by k2blader (Hic sunt dracones..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: jude24

I see. Yes, we defintiely disagree. :o)


346 posted on 08/05/2005 7:32:26 PM PDT by k2blader (Hic sunt dracones..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: jude24

Stare Decis is dead.

Litigation IS endless and continus.

Now we have the ratche effect. We move left but never right. It makes conservative appointments useless.


347 posted on 08/05/2005 7:32:27 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: k2blader
you believe homosexuality is "equally protected" under the Constitution, and I don't.

Wrong. Homosexuals are "equally protected" under the Constitution. A critical difference.

348 posted on 08/05/2005 7:33:58 PM PDT by jude24 ("Stupid" isn't illegal - but it should be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
ratche effect.

???? Do you mean "ratchet"?

We move left but never right.

That's definately not true. Look at United States v. Lopez and US v. Morrison and tell me the Supreme Court didn't lurch towards the right as it resurrected restrictions upon the Commerce Clause, and limited Wickard.

349 posted on 08/05/2005 7:37:53 PM PDT by jude24 ("Stupid" isn't illegal - but it should be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: jude24; blue-duncan; xzins; k2blader
Starae decisis is critical. It allows contiunuity, rather than constant relitigation of an issue. Litigation has to end somewhere.

The supreme court is not bound by stare decisis. Particlualry in regard to questions of constitutionality.

Indeed stare decisis should not be used by them in determining the constitutionality of a law, particularly if a justice is of the belief that the court has previously ruled incorrectly on the same issue.

They may change their minds as often as they desire or are so compelled by their adherence to the constitution.

Any justice who decides the constitutionality of a law based on stare decisis and not on the constitution is, IMO, not worthy of sitting on the bench.

The justices are compelled to uphold and defend the Constitution as they believe it to mean. Any adherence to stare decisis when they have questions about whether the court was wrong in the past is a violation of their oath.

350 posted on 08/05/2005 7:38:41 PM PDT by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
The supreme court is not bound by stare decisis.

It's not absolute, but it is critical. One must be cautious in overruling old precedents. Remember the old Roscoe Pound line, "The law should be stable, but never standing still"? It has to be able to evolve, adapt, and learn, but it can't just change willy-nilly. Starae decisis is critical for that - and that's why mainstream jurists - like it looks like Roberts is shaping up to be - have a deep respect for precedent, even while remaining mindful of its limitations.

351 posted on 08/05/2005 7:43:35 PM PDT by jude24 ("Stupid" isn't illegal - but it should be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Unfortunately, pro bono indicates to me that he volunteered.

Not necessarily. He could've either been helping out a colleague or fulfilling a 'pro bono quota' that some law firms have as a requirement. Either way, it was excellent experience for him. I'd much rather have a SCOTUS nominee who knows his Constitutional law and uses that to make decisions than to judge using personal feelings or political bias.

I guess I just don't get it: why is it that Liberals are detested for doing the very things you expect of a supposedly good Conservative? You don't really want that kind of slanted justice, do you?

352 posted on 08/05/2005 7:54:23 PM PDT by arasina (So there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: jude24
It's not absolute, but it is critical.

In every other area of the law I would agree. But in constitutional law, stare decisis should be irrelevant. Each justice is charged with upholding and defending the constitution. Each time a new issue is brought up or an old issue is revisited it should be examined with new eyes and with a dedication to instituting the intent of the drafters of the Constitution. Reliance on stare decisis is tantamount to shirking their duty as justices. Their duty is to interpret the constitution as they see it not as William O Douglas or William Brennan saw it. It is a sworn duty and it is a non-delagable duty. They cannot delegate that responsibility to dead men who were wrong in the past simply because of a respect for stare decisis.

STARE DECISIS IS NOT WRITTEN INTO THE CONSTITUTION. IT CANNOT BE USED TO INTERPRET THE DOCUMENT. THE ONLY THING THAT THE JUSTICES CAN CONSIDER IS THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF!!!!!

353 posted on 08/05/2005 8:58:19 PM PDT by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
...with a dedication to instituting the intent of the drafters of the Constitution.

STARE DECISIS IS NOT WRITTEN INTO THE CONSTITUTION.

The requirement that the Constitution be interpreted in conformity with the intent of the drafters is also not in the Constitution.
354 posted on 08/05/2005 9:01:39 PM PDT by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC; jude24
The requirement that the Constitution be interpreted in conformity with the intent of the drafters is also not in the Constitution.

When push comes to shove, judicial review of Congressional Legislation is not in the constitution. But the oath to uphold and defend the constitution is part of the oath the justices take. They take no oath to the principles of "stare decisis". Their loyalty is to the document and not someone's prior opiinion of what the document does or does not say or mean. It is an individual oath and not a corporate oath. They owe a duty to the constitution and a duty to God (whether they think he exists or not).

355 posted on 08/05/2005 9:09:14 PM PDT by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: jude24

What is the difference?

Homosexuality defines homosexuals. Without their homosexuality, homosexuals would not exist.

So if you are saying there is "equal protection" of homosexuals under the Constitution, you are also saying homosexuality is a constitutionally protected right.

It most definitely is not.


356 posted on 08/05/2005 11:46:45 PM PDT by k2blader (Hic sunt dracones..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
Their loyalty is to the document and not someone's prior opiinion of what the document does or does not say or mean.

We all have our opinion of what the document does or does not mean. Justices just get to put their opinions into practice.
357 posted on 08/06/2005 2:58:52 AM PDT by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: jude24; P-Marlowe

I don't think there's any way to interpret it other than that the state can't draft a law that allows homosexuals (et al) to have advantage in a discrimination suit simply because they are homosexuals.

It doesn't say that homosexuals can't file a discrimination suit.

They can.

They can't file one where there's a law that gives them a leg up in a discrimination suit simply because of their homosexuality, BECAUSE the state is not permitted to draft such a law.


That's the only interpretation possible from that legislation you posted, and I'm likewise convinced that it could have been better written, but that no other conclusion was possible even written as it was.

So...both you lawyers are wrong, and I, a preacher, am right. (File under: Divine Right of Preachers...:>)


358 posted on 08/06/2005 8:16:23 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: xzins; jude24; blue-duncan
I don't think there's any way to interpret it other than that the state can't draft a law that allows homosexuals (et al) to have advantage in a discrimination suit simply because they are homosexuals.

I think you are wrong. It appears to give them a distinct disadvantage under the law.

I believe you can constitutionally pass a law that will deny any person the right to file suit for discrimination based upon "sexual orientation". But in order for that suit to pass equal protection muster, it must not deprive any individual from equal protection under the laws. In other words it must be reciprocal and essentially apply to all persons "equally." Thus a law prohibiting any lawsuit of any kind for a claim of discrimination based on sexual orientation or even sexual behavior would pass constitutional muster but it must allow the homosexuals the right to discriminate against heterosexuals and families without fear of lawsuit. IOW you must remove sexual orientation as the basis of any suit and not merely as the basis of a suit against homosexuals.

Colorado could have solved the problem by making homosexual behavior illegal (as then it would bar any discrimination since the person discriminating would be discriminating against those engaged in criminal activites -- which would be legal and would bar any claim for discrimination by operation of law), but the supreme court in Lawrence closed that door.

After hearing arguments from both sides, I lean towards a finding that the statute in question was poorly drafted and denies equal protection under the laws to all citizens and unconsitutionally singles out a specific group for denial of rights available to other citizens based solely upon a perception that they belong to a group which engages in activites that are legally sanctioned by the state.

I will need more persuasive arguments from your side to make me vote to uphold this particular piece of leglislation. I am inclined at this point to agree with the majority.

Here are my question to those who agree with the minority:

1) Under this law could a person file a suit against a homosexual person for denying them access to the homosexual's restaurant, apartment building, store, exercise facility or other accomodation becuase the homosexual percieves that they are heterosexuals?

Could a homosexual be sued for denying anyone access to homosexually owned accomodations because the homosexual perceived them to be fundamentalist christian heterosexuals or that he perceived that they othewise had a bias against homosexuals?

If the answer is yes to either of those questions, then, in my opinion, the statute does not provide equal protection to all citizens under the law.

359 posted on 08/06/2005 9:10:30 AM PDT by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340341-359 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson