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.
In fact, I'll up the ante. Would you care to be consistent and suggest that Condi Rice (50 years old, never married) is a lesbian?
How open-minded of you to take the L.A. Times as gospel. Click here.
Different case, but same principle. As Robert Bork said, you can't invent new rights, you can only redistribute them. When homosexuality is made a protected category, then those who object to the behavior are forced to hire them in their private businesses or allow them to reside in their privately owned property -- thus further diminishing the private property rights of the rest of us. Those rights were always assumed to include the right to exclude whomever you wish from your private property.
Well, my old man didn't marry til he was 40... and he was as conservative as they come. He was a Reagan Republican before The Gipper joined the GOP.
My last reply was supposed to be for snark purposes only sorry if it causes confusion
If he is not attorney of record then he is not on the case.
I have been asked advise by other lawyers based on my experience and knowledge. I would not list those cases as "mine".
Re Condi: I know many accomplished women who are single but not lesbian. They don't do the asking [to be married].
For very smart women, the problem of finding a husband is more acute because so many men are intimidated. For an accomplished black woman, I've heard that the problem is even worse. My daughter in law, for example, didn't marry until her late 30's because she didn't find anyone she could trust and who had her standards.
Thanks for posting this article, I hope Ann reads it, and thanks for the correction too, this is very troubling news.
This is our last stand to preserve our original concept of government and freedom and once one (or more) judges sit and legislate from the bench on a national basis, with Political Correctness being the standard rather than the Constitution, we certainly lose the fight.
As a conservative I cannot even begin to support anyone who had any involvement in the ongoing destruction of our moral values and the American way of life. As far as I'm concerned he has shown his stripes.
We need a tried and tested conservative that has NO liberal leanings and will uphold law according to the Constitution, not the political mood of the day.
The blogger to whom you referred me is completely missing the distinction between taking the position of your boss --the person paying you to plead his case -- and volunteering your time to help out a cause. This is very, very disturbing, if true.
Uh...I'll take a swing at that one.
Maybe because ... it's the truth?
"More evidence Ann Coulter is right and this guy should never have been nominated!"
This is more evidence that Roberts is a good choice for the seat on SCOTUS. The Colorado law was wrong and unconstitutional. The fact that 'they' are part of the dung punchers and strap-a-dick-to-me crowd should not mean that it is legal to discriminate against 'them' regarding housing or employment.
Would you agree that discrimination against a person regarding housing or employment because 'they' are Christian should be tolerated and legal? I don't think so. What is the difference between that and this gay issue that Roberts worked on?
I am probably to outspoken on the issue of gays - I am intolerant of their lifestyle. That does not give us the right to discriminate on issues that are the rights of all. Do I believe that we should have non-discrimanatory laws protecting gays - absolutely not - they should be protected by the same law that protects us who are not gay - the US Constitution.
Actually, the religious right should be upset about this. Were Roberts acting for a paying client in the Romer, that would be one thing. But he did this case pro-bono, which means he worked for free as a volunteer. Most lawyers who do pro-bono work at that level select cases where they think they can accomplish a good thing.
The decision in Romer was not a good thing. It was a real setback to the constitution and represents supreme court judicial activism at its worst.
This is very good evidence that Ann Coulter was not out of line with her articles about Roberts.
Not too different a decision from Kelo vs. New London, now that I think about it. Both assume that private property doesn't really exist, but that the government magnanimously allows us to use some -- only so long as we do so in a way that promotes whatever they deem to be the 'public good' (paying high taxes, mainstreaming homosexuality, etc.).
Or maybe like Coulte rhas been saying a Stealth nominee is a Souter in Scalia's clothing!
Cite the provision in the Constitution that it violates.
Would you agree that discrimination against a person regarding housing or employment because 'they' are Christian should be tolerated and legal?
If it's your own private property, then as far as I'm concerned you should be able to discriminate however you like. There's certainly nothing in the Constitution prohibiting it.
Maybe Roberts has a cousin or relative of sorts in CO and he/she is gay. He would want his family to have the same freedom to live and work in CO just like any straight person.
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.