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.
This is an attempted smear campaign by the left.
They think that the religious right will oppose Roberts for being a good lawyer.
More evidence Ann Coulter is right and this guy should never have been nominated!
The more I read on Roberts the less certain I am about his credentials. I have to admit I'm truly torn over this one. Do we value the Presidents right to his choice over our need for a more conservative court. God help us if we get another Souter. Why couldn't the President nominate a Sam Alito or Miguel Estrada. Oh well, que sera, sera.
John Roberts is an attorney.
ping to post 3...it's already working...
or post 4....
Damn.
A man of Roberts' stature can pick and choose his pro bono work. He didn't marry until he was past 40. Is the wife a beard?
The Romer case was a terrible case. What Colorado tried to do was to say that you couldn't make homosexuality a protected category with special rights. The Supreme Court struck that down.
I heard he had his dog spayed, too. Guess that makes him Pro-choice.
Yes he is an attorney, but this was a pro-bono case. He was under no obligation to do work for these people.
is the LAT trying to help him or hurt him? do they wants the left to like Roberts or the Right to dislike him? or both?
do they know that we know or do they know that we know that they know that we know?
This is not just about being a good lawyer. This was pro bono. I wouldn't choose to donate my time to a pro bono case that I didn't believe in, and Roberts had infinitely more clout than I do.
Thanks for doing the left's job for it. Good going.
I see from a number of the posts on this thread that the left's smear tactic campaign is working.
Has anybody asked him why he did it? Has anybody done research on the case? Maybe there was some actual discrimination going on, above and beyond what the homos usually complain about? Has anybody asked him if he thought it was a mistake?
You people sure are quick to act on this, aren't you.
I actually think the press fulfilled its duty on this one. They provided information to the public on a potential Supreme Court Justice about whom we know very little. Use this information as you choose.
No they'll oppose him because he worked on behalf of gay rights activists.
Two words: Justice Souter
NewsMax is a leftist rag? When did this happen?
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.
Neither gays nor anyone else has a "right" to work for / live with a property owner who doesn't want them there. If Roberts fought this law, screw him.
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.