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.
So what you're saying is that a private employer or owner can discriminate against sexual choice but not against religion, race, creed or gender?
Isn't that kind of contradictory?
Absolutely. If I were to use the power of government (i.e., men with guns) to force a property or business owner to associate with me even though he does not wish to house or employ Christians, then I would be an evil, abusive person.
Where is the part of the Constitution that prohibits discrimination by private landowners and employers?
I like this guy more and more every day, a good conservative who can fairly protect the rights of the people. I don't think Bush could have picked a better candidate.
It is not my "right" to live in your property or work in your business, regardless of the grounds on which you choose to reject me. The right to private property has always included the right to exclude whomever you wish. Freedom of association includes the right not to associate.
No. Actually, this is EXACTLY about being a good lawyer.
Hogan and Hartson decided this was a case for pro bono work. The FIRM decided.
Roberts, being a GREAT lawyer, helped his firm.
Absolutely not. See my more recent posts. A private landlord or employer should be free to discriminate on ANY basis.
Actually, lady lawyer's point is right on. Your position sounds suspiciously like we should support the confirmation of William Douglas as long as Bush nominated him. I can't go with you there.
I'm a party guy and generally will work to support the interests of the party. But on the supreme court, it's too important. We get two, at most three picks while we have an R pres and R senate. We have to hit with originalists 100% or nothing changes. Frankly, the Romer decision was a hideous exercise in extreme judicial activism. That Roberts could support it with his free, and very expensive time, is very, very disturbing.
I am really dubious about Roberts at this point. Conservatives really have to choose whether to support this president for short term tactical reasons at the expense of long-term damage to the supreme court and the country. I'm not quite ready to start writing my R Senator. But I'm close. Roberts is looking more and more like a stealth Souter all the time.
OK, here's what Sen. Reid said of Roberts:
One thing [Reid] asked [Roberts] was how he felt about Supreme Court precedents -- in particular, on what grounds they might be overturned. "Precedent is so important to me in the law," Reid told him.
Roberts, Reid recalled, said, "'Oh, on the Supreme Court you can change precedent only if there's this and this,' and he was rattling them off. I hope I didn't act surprised, but I'd never heard anything like that before." Roberts, in Reid's view, left no doubt that he would be very reluctant to overturn precedents. To do so, Roberts had said, the Court would first have to consider a series of objective criteria, two of which stood out: whether a precedent fostered stability in the nation; and the extent to which society had come to rely on an earlier ruling, even a dubious one. "I thought it would be more of a weaselly answer than that, but he said you have to meet all these standards before you can change a precedent," Reid said.
Maybe the Democratic "resistance" is a feint...
If I choose to rent out a floor of my home I damn well have a right to say no fags allowed.
Further there are jobs where being gay could affect the job performance, and employers should have discretion.
Further, as always has been, gays who keep their perverted sex in the closet don't run into problems it the 'openly gay' crowed. Yes you have a right to be openly perverted but you do not have the right to foist that into everyone's face and expect them to treat you indiscriminatly. Once the cat is out of the bag, the public get's to decide what to do when it craps on the carpet.
If John Roberts is against that discretion he's anti business, anti Christian, and anti-constitution, and should go home.
If the private property owner doesn't want to rent to a Christian, then they shouldn't have to. That's what private property means.
What is the difference between that and this gay issue that Roberts worked on?
When it comes to private property, no one should have to do with it what they do not wish to do. I see no discrimination about it. Employment is different, up to a point. If you have a business or non-profit where values is a primary consideration (like a Christian school), then they should not have to hire a person who violates said values. Employment by a public entity should not take sexual orientation or religion into account.
Just some back ground infomation for ALL:
If an attorney appears on behalf of a client for a case they must file a "notice of appearance". This is the official document that says this attorney is assuming responsibility for representing this client. This is true of ALL attorneys on the case, not just the lead attorney.
(even attorneys who are just standing in are required to file an appearance document.)
Now the real question here is whether this "notice of appearnace" appears in the case. This would be discernable via the federal PACER system of the clerks or just via FINDLAW.COM.
As for the help being crucial, it just depends on the attorney. If Mr. Jean was a new attorney or relativly inexperienced on appeal, then even small details would be "crucial". This includes items like answer any one question to the entire bench. Do not look down.
I want to know more about the nature of the participation.
I also want to know WHY was this law firm involved in homosexual agenda politics?
Do you expect me to beleive that in his own firm Roberts cannot stand up for morals, but that he would on the Supreme Court?
"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?"
--You're kidding, right? First, the expression of one's faith is core First Amendment protected activity. Homosexuality is not a religion, and it is only the conduct that is being proscribed or regulated by the state.
The fact that one is vexed by homosexual temptations does not make that person any less than anyone else; everyone has his Achilles heal. For others, it's theft, hatred, greed, gluttony, lust, or jealousy, etc. But when one acts on that weakness through conduct, the state has a right to sanction the conduct.
Your question supposes that law has no moral foundation. Most conservatives take the position that it absolutely does -- that there is a higher moral law. Otherwise, the law becomes only a jumble of statutes and regulations with no basis other than the current fashion or rage. Recall that the Nazis promulgated a whole system of law in 1930's Germany that ultimately let to concentration camps. The people who implemented those laws probably believed they were being good Germans and were pursuing lofty civic goals at the time. But from the viewpoint of Judeo-Christian morality, it was sheer madness.
We, too, will get there at the present rate. In Canada already Christians have been jailed for speaking out against homosexual conduct. This is just the beginning.
I'm from Colorado and I know the Romer case well. It was a terrible decision by the Supremes and may be one of the most extreme cases of judicial activism with absolutely NO constitutional or statutory basis in existence. I cannot imagine any explanation that would satisfy me as to why an attorney would give pro-bono time to this case.
BTW, the issue in Romer was solely the constitutionality of a Referendum passed by Colorado voters saying that homosexuals did not get special treatment of any kind under Colorado law. The Supremes invalidated the statute.
I believe Condi has had several publicly well known byfriends like Gene Washington of the NFL.
If you or anyone has a copy of that, what were the names of the attorneys on the briefs?
I see your point. And I do agree.
Of course the Referendum in Romer was mischaracterized. The Romer case arose out of a Referendum passed in CO. The Referendum very clearly stated that homosexuals got no special rights because they were homosexuals. In other words, this Referendum prevented homosexuals from having any special victim status. It did not discriminate against them in any 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.