Posted on 08/04/2005 7:37:34 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
Supreme Court nominee John Roberts donated his time to work behind the scenes for gay rights activists – and helped win a decision that’s been hailed as the "single most important positive ruling” for the gay rights movement.
Roberts was a lawyer specializing in appellate work in 1995 when he agreed to help represent the gay rights activists as part of his law firm’s pro bono work.
He did not argue the case before the Supreme Court, but he was instrumental in reviewing filings and preparing oral arguments, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times.
"Roberts’ work on behalf of gay rights activists, whose cause is anathema to many conservatives, appears to illustrate his allegiance to the credo of the legal profession: to zealously represent the interests of the client, whoever it might be,” the newspaper reports.
Walter A. Smith, then head of the pro bono department at Roberts’ law firm, Hogan & Hartson, asked for Roberts’ help on the case and he agreed immediately. "It’s illustrative of his open-mindedness, his fair-mindedness,” said Smith. "He did a brilliant job.”
The case before the Supreme Court, Romer vs. Evans, dealt with a voter-approved 1992 Colorado initiative that would have allowed employers and landlords to exclude gays from jobs and housing.
A 6-3 ruling striking down the initiative was handed down in May 1996.
Jean Dubofsky, lead lawyer for the gay rights activists, said Roberts’ work in the case was "absolutely crucial.”
And Suzanne B. Goldberg, a lawyer with Lambda, a legal services group for gays and lesbians, called the Supreme Court ruling the "single most important positive ruling in the history of the gay rights movement.”
Antonin Scalia – who was joined in his dissent by Clarence Thomas and William H. Rehnquist – said: "Coloradans are entitled to be hostile toward homosexual conduct.”
Roberts did not mention the case in his 67-page response to a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire that was released Tuesday.
The committee had asked for specific instances in which he had performed pro bono work.
Smith said the omission was most likely an oversight because Roberts wasn’t the chief litigator in the case.
In another pro bono case, Roberts failed to overturn a Washington, D.C., measure that took welfare benefits away from homeless people.
respectfully disagree - denying housing (when one can pay it and satisfy any credit requirements) or employment (if the job is available, marketed as available, and the applicant is clearly qualified if not best qualified for the job) based on a prejudice has been addressed by our courts.
So many words, bordering on sophistry (because a person does not need to explain why he won't sell/rent or employ; he has only to deny it) or on society's often inept attempts to render justice... but it is the law of the land, and we should respect it. If we have a problem with the law, then our Constitution holds the keys for we the People to express it as such through our legislators... which, you might admit, is a process that we're in the midst of these past 25 years as our Conservative movement grows stronger.
Yet you do make compelling statements inferring the shadow of class and protected groups upon the process - both of which I strongly stand against. Does what happened in Colorado fall under the aegis of a government extending further special rights to a "protected" group - and one, which I will add, is certainly activist enough that we already are very familiar with previous (gay marriage...) initiatives? I don't know. Do you? If you have more conclusive information that can clarify a news report from the la times, then please let me know.
As I mentioned in my first note, I suspect there's more to this than meets the eye - and based my opinion on the face value of the post. Give me more info, and we'll see where this goes...
I understand.
It already is; see Kelo vs New London, or the death of the 5th Amendment by judicial tyranny (and legislative silence in response...).
Big law firms like this are almost all dominated by liberals and they emphasize taking a healthy percentage of pro bono work, for which they give each other awards. This case was not taken by Roberts, but by one of his partners, over which he would have had almost no say. The case was argued by a Colorado lawyer. Roberts didn't work on the briefs, he offered general advice how to approach a SCOTUS argument, a courtesy I'm sure he would extend to any client of his firm, regardless of their politics.
This episode tells us nothing about how he might have voted in the Romer case had he been on the Court at the time.
"Yes, the fact that homosexuals are a specially protected class who can claim discrimination based on sexual something or other. "
Haven't women, the handicapped, and any other group that claims to be discriminated against, done so by claiming a group status? The fact that blacks have the right to vote puts them in a protected class that allows blacks to vote should you choose to think of it that way.
Under your logic, I, as a white male, am a protected class am allowed to work where I choose. There can be no discrimination unless a right existed first.
Employment is routinely denied on prejudices such as education (you think only college graduates know computer programming for instance?)
The courts have spoken with regard to COLOR, an unchangeable attribute, that cannot affect your impact on a rental property or in most cases your work.
Being gay will.
It will bring gay boyfreinds or girlfreinds to frequent the rental, if that is adjacent to the owners family and children it is unfair to foists that on people.
Further it's asking the owner to tolerate a mortal sin on their own property and to say nothing.
Thank you for your response. The Colorado initiative said nothing directly about housing or employment. It only restricted the power of the State of Colorado and its subdivisions to create certain special, protected classes. It said,
"No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian, or Bisexual Orientation. Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing."
The net effect of this would be that a homosexual and I would have exactly the same rights with regard to housing and employment. That is no longer true. The homosexual has a protected status, based solely on his claimed perversion, that I do not have.
Cordially,
Women are women and cannot change that.
Handicapped people cannot be healed, thus their status as handicapped.
Black people cannot change their skin color (Michael Jackson aside).
Gay people can stop sleeping with members of the same sex, same as pet owners can find someplace else for their pet if they want to rent a place that has a no pets policy.
Me? No.
Should a private owner have the right to do so? Yes.
and thank you, for offering clarification. Now, having read your recent comment, taken directly from the case, the sides become clearer. As I've mentioned before, I reiterate now: there is no room for group (read: socialist) politics in America.
... and a bit embarassing for me, imho... I believe American Society has enough individuals of good character that we try to establish standards of fairness and decency. I humbly count myself among this segment, and can only offer this as explanation for my initial comments. Guess this old grognard didn't have enough coffee this morning and 'got took' by Grey's Old Lady for a bit of a ride (doesn't happen too often, though, thank God).
Thanks again, pleasure exchanging comments with you.
My problem is with the insinuation you made that he may be gay and that his marriage and wife may be a "cover". I just think that kind of stuff is what makes political dialogue in this country so debased.
Challenge him all you want on his pro bono work, I think he needs to answer questions like that, but the whole "Is he gay?" thing is clumsy at best and mean spirited at worst.
It is more than possible that he is not gay. But I don't think it is "mean-spirited" to inquire. I think it is important if anyone in a position of power has an agenda to overturn all traditional morality to accommodate his or her favorite perversion.
In the first place many blacks object to be homosexuality be lumped in the same category of civil rights as ethnicity, and many women object as well. In the second place, homosexuals already have the same rights as women and blacks and I have, voting being one example. Why the need for an ill-defined protected class? Are homosexuals being denied their right to vote?
How do you identify who is a member of the class of homosexuals, etc? If I claimed to be of that class so that I could claim some discrimination, how would you know if I was or wasn't a member of the class?
Why do you support the Supreme Politburo overruling the common sense preference of the people of the State of Colorado in this matter?
There can be no discrimination unless a right existed first.
If you mean legally, then I agree, which is why I also disagree with you, because in natural law there is no such thing as a "right" of homosexual conduct. It is a contradiction in terms. True rights command corresponding obligations on the part of others, but it is only tyranny that commands acceptance of and compliance with sexual perversion. So I regard any law that contravenes this truth as null and void, and no law at all.
Cordially,
If the people pass a specific law to take away a particular land owner's freedom of association, force that land owner to associate with someone he would rather not associate with, then the will of the people should prevail because ultimately the people can do anything with their Constitution that they wish.
I would personally not vote for any politician who would force a homosexual land owner to rent out his property to a heterosexual or force a black land owner to rent his property to a white person. I would defend their freedom to associate with whomever they choose.
2-Did they participate in the vote which was later overturned
So you do favor making homosexual a protected minority with special rights. You are trying to have it both ways, but the facts are that homosexuals are a protected minority with special rights and your are a supporter of the laws and laywers that implemented it.
And why should I not be allowed to choose not to associate with people whose behavior I find repulsive?
I think it's high time we start a petition to not affirm this guy.
I'm sorry but I'm not clear as to why you are asking these questions, why the questions are relevant or that you have accurately noted my beliefs.
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.