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.
Sounds like a litmus test to me.
Then they've got the Religious Right wrong; we (and I do include myself in that group, as I am a Christian and of the Right) do not believe in persecution for persecution's sake. We Love the Sinner in Christ, but do not love the sin.
Though I'm a bit leery of anything the left-coast slimes puts out through their jaundiced lens, if the particulars of the case are correctly stated as in the article, that people could be excluded from employment or housing because of their sexual preferences, then that initiative was just plain wrong.
And I reiterate; the slimes can't resist painting Justice Scalia in a negative light with that quote - would like to see the context in which the Justice offered this, and would not be in the least bit surprised to find that Justice Scalia did say this but in a completely unrelated discussion.
I suspect there's more to this story, but based on the face value from this post, I say Bravo for Judge (soon to be Justice!!!) Roberts.
.
I am beginning to have serious doubts about Roberts, looks like Ann was correct in asking why not a real tried and true conservative. And she has very good reason to worry about Roberts in fact being a closet liberal.
OK, that does it for me. As a conservative lawyer, I would never, never work on the side of a litigant seeking to promote such an extreme, far-left position.
Bush has screwed up. This man is not a committed conservative.
For all we know, he answered a few questions for the plaintiff one afternoon. There is a big difference between marching on the courthouse on a gay pride parade float and talking to somebody for an hour or two about their case.
Wait for all the facts.
Sloth, even that description of the Romer case is slanted. What the Colorado voters said was that you can't make homosexuality a protected category with special rights.
This is really upsetting news. Roberts is a guy who has been positioning himself for power all of his life. Is the late-acquired wife just part of that positioning?
What's wrong with a litmus test. I want to know what we are getting. When you buy a car to you just start making payments and hope you get a Ford Crown Vic but oh well it's really just a Yugo...
Nice try. I have read Ann Coulter's and other's concerns about Roberts' credentials as a constitutionalist. There are arguments to be made on both sides. Ann may be brash, but she's not stupid enough to suggest that simply because a man marries late in life, he must be a homosexual.
I can tell you what the case was about. Colorado had a statewide initiative to prohibit local governments from telling employers and landlords that they can't make homosexuality a criterion for denying a job or an apartment to someone. The initiative passed, and SCOTUS struck it down using some of the most specious legal reasoning in its entire history. And Roberts was helping the homosexual side of the case pro bono.
A litmus test is hypocritical when the republicans are complaining about democratic litmus tests.
I'm not stupid, as you stupidly suggest. He was helping the gay rights lobby behind the scenes, and left this little tidbit off his C.V. even when he was specifically asked about his pro bono projects.
no it is not. We should be doing all with an eye to conservative goals.
I remember the case, or one very similar, a Christain couple, did not want to rent a rent house or apartment to an openly homo renter, went to court an lost. This was the case that allowed homo's to claim protected minority status, was a landmark "guy rights" case. If Roberts donated his free time to this case he is no conservative.
I'm certain Bush knew. From the other side, once again the liberal cut off a hand which feeds them by attacking their cause
Well I'm not a member of Congress, I am an American citizen born and bred and I want to know what kind of man we are putting on the SCOTUS
Is this just an example of Roberts being "a good lawyer" as you say? Is that what good lawyers do, volunteer their services to causes they disagree with? Seems like a very unprincipled choice to make. I understand the concept of working on behalf of the client. But to voluntarily work without pay for an organization that has goals in opposition to one's own principles seems unlikely.
I will be interested to hear more about this case and his involvement in it.
I don't like the American Bar Association, Arthur Miller, soggy toast or creeping underwear.
Having said that:
http://www.policyreview.org/FEB02/Casey_print.html
but was he attorney of record?
What was the help he really gave?
Did he help the attorney of record rehearse by being a pretend judge in practice?
I want to know more before I start to say "no way".
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.