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 thats 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 firms 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. "Its 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 wasnt 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.
That is 100% false. Jim Crow was about forced segregation. That's anti-free-association, just like Judge Garrity's forced integration in Boston in the '70s. The comments on this board that you so stenuously object to are pro-free-association. There is no equivalency between the two.
No, not out of the goodness of their hearts. If they're pushing him, it's because they have good reason to believe that he's not as conservative as he's been made out to be. A lot of liberals in the media and in government seem to be under that impression, by the looks of things.
You mean when he did it for free? Maybe it didn't make history, but I'd wager it's not a very common occurrence, to say the least.
Every firm does pro bono work and the work often goes to a lawyer with a particular skill in a given subject area. I don't know the particulars in this case but Roberts may simply have been rthe best qualified for the legal issues.
Roberts was considered one of the most respected legal minds in the staff. Consequently he was approached on more than 100 occasions for assistance and he never turned anyone down. Period. With reference to this specific case, he spent some 6 hours in mock judicial forum, preparing the attorney for what to expect in court and how to deal with it. He did not address anything other than fundamentals.
Firms decide which cases they will accept, and it's the lawyers role to take and/or assist based where he is needed. Hell, how much of a role did his secretary play?
And the problem with this is? All people are entitled to legal representation.
I must've missed the memo on that. I hardly consider lawyers obligated to donate their time to advancing points of law that they know are incorrect.
Can't help you there since you seem to be replying to a point I didn't make. I said all people hae a right to legal representation. I never said they all had a right to free representation but if a firm is doing pro bono work and a gifted atty has particular skills in an area of the law the litigant needs there is often a good match.
One, if one is to act as an adult, one must never make the perfect the enemy of the good. John Roberts may well have represented a gay rights group. Gay people do have rights and since the particulars of this matter have only been made known in the MSM one would be ill-advised to make that the last word on the subject.
I've yet to be convinced that Roberts represents the good.
John Roberts may well have represented a gay rights group.
He could have, but that's not the objection that's being raised. He's being criticized for helping prepare a case that was based on a very shoddy understanding of the law. Whose behalf he was doing it on is utterly irrelevant.
And, good people have the freedom to boycott and stigmatize those that engage in racial discrimination.
Has it occurred to you that racism might have ended without a socialist solution?
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.