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 ...
was he even ON the case?
for all we know the only thing he did was correct language.
Was his name on the brief?
If his name was not on the brief, then he was not the attorny for the case. The help given could have been as much as a rewrite or as little as lending a pencil.
IF Roberts supported Romer he should not have been appointed to the court by a conservative President. Romer is simply more of the same ole same ole, taking cultural issues out of the public square and letting the gods on the becnch decide. I hope to hell Roberts doesn't have that mindset.
Another fishing expedition?
Do you think that any of this will stick?
If, as a private attorney, he worked to help homosexual activists use the legal system to destroy the moral fabric of this country, yes that is a problem. If he does not support using the legal system to further the homosexual agenda then it is not a problem.
We will soon be hearing from the "I'm never voting Republican again" crowd that has left the Party more times than Ali and Jordan have retired put together.
On what do you base your opinion of John Roberts? Because either there's a paper trail or there isn't.
We know he supports Roe v. Wade as precedent and "settled law".
We know he did pro bono work for the gay lobby.
We know he's "open-minded".
We know the press is treading VERY lightly on his toes.
Wow - when you see light on the horizon in the east, do you think it's sunrise or sunset?
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
One of several articles about John Roberts' pro bono work on behalf of "gay" rights activist clients. I'll find one or two more representative articles just so you can figure out what it all means.
What it means to me is that (most, not all, not all) lawyers are similar to prostitutes. Here's a man who, it seems obvious to me, is a very moral, upright, right thinking man. But, when he worked in a law office, he had to do his master's bidding. He worked, he earned money, he did what he was told. Unless he volunteered for this particular case because he thought it was such a good cause...
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
believe what you want to believe...
personally, the guy is able to put aside his personal feelings for a client. That also means he probably puts aside his political leanings for the Constitution.
One generally translates to the other. It certainly did in the cases of Thomas and Scalia.
will do
LOL
thats already begun LOL
Coulter is part of the "tin-foil" group?
And does the fact that a conservative person is apprehensive about a Supreme Court nominee in light of the many times so-called "conservative" candidates have turned out to be judicial activists make them a "tin-foil" individual?
I hardly think so.
I don't like the fact that Roberts worked for the Lavender Mafia. But there are other issues to consider also and the circumstances involved in this situation. Time and questioning hopefully will reveal whether Roberts is what he has been presented as, or another Souter.
In the meantime, the President isn't God and he doesn't speak with Divine Revelation. Its possible to question his actions and choices and still be a good conservative and Republican and basically support him.
I am a Coulter fan, but do not agree with her on this subject. I can disagree with someone on some things,but still not be a sarcastic,nasty person to those I do not always see eye to eye with. You sound to me like you have an Ann Coulter fixation. you are not helping your argument.
How can you call this a hit piece? A hit piece would be about John Roberts barricading himself in front of an abortion clinic, not helping the gay lobby. This is a love letter to the left - "don't worry, it's all good".
I advise not starting a I'm never voting Republican again drinking game..
I think you're right and as a person who got caught up in the Schiavo emotion, I think I'll take a pass this time.
btw, I think Roberts is going to be an excellent Supreme Court justice and that Coulter was out to lunch on her articles on this topic.
Do you think a conservative Justice should support Romer?
honestly, I think that you are just looking for shit to leave the GOP or something.
Just say it, you won't vote for the GOP again.
you know you want too.
As I have said, I think what the man has said and what I have read about him. So he did pro-bono work. So what. That probably means he is able to separate his personal feelings for that of work for a client.
that probably also means that he can separate his personal poliical leanings and will interpret the Constitution the way it was meant.
It probably DOESN'T mean that he is a Conservative Judicial activist. I can handle that. Coulter fans cannot, because if it isn't an eye for an eye with that crowd, then it's wrong.
I am REALLY going to laugh when he gets confirmed. Hell, I might even take the day off of work so I can laugh at people going into histrionics all day on FR.
Right you are. I thought we were smarter than that.
in this case, coulter is.
Someone needs to slip her a donut or something.
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.