Posted on 08/04/2005 8:39:46 AM PDT by jamese777
Roberts Donated Help to Gay Rights Case In 1996, activists won a landmark anti-bias ruling with the aid of the high court nominee. By Richard A. Serrano Times Staff Writer
August 4, 2005
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. worked behind the scenes for gay rights activists, and his legal expertise helped them persuade the Supreme Court to issue a landmark 1996 ruling protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation.
Then a lawyer specializing in appellate work, the conservative Roberts helped represent the gay rights activists as part of his law firm's pro bono work. He did not write the legal briefs or argue the case before the high court, but he was instrumental in reviewing filings and preparing oral arguments, according to several lawyers intimately involved in the case.
Gay rights activists at the time described the court's 6-3 ruling as the movement's most important legal victory. The dissenting justices were those to whom Roberts is frequently likened for their conservative ideology: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Don't let the door hit you in the backside.
I'm standing in support until I hear more.
The only litmus test this conservative uses is whether a judge will interpret the Constitution as it is, not as he wishes it were. It happens that the Romer case, which Roberts apparently volunteered on, falls WAY on the wrong side of that line.
--The only way Roberts can repair this with principled conservatives is if the LA Times article is a lie--that is Roberts did not work pro-bono on the case--
What do you think of John Adams defending the Redcoats being tried for the Boston Massacre? He must have been a pretty despicable type, maybe a British spy or something.
I am still taken bets that she is dead wrong.
Well, thats better odds than those in vitro taking bets on you being right. So far 50 million have lost, and Republicans can't seem to get it right.
But then again, I guess you can "live" with it if your wrong.
For free, in a civil case, by one of the top appellate attorneys in the country. Come on, you know better than to use the word 'right' in that manner in this discussion. It's about as substantial as the Dixie Chick's right not to be criticized for their actions as free speech.
--Well, thats better odds than those in vitro taking bets on you being right. So far 50 million have lost, and Republicans can't seem to get it right--
Sometimes I can almost understand the dread the left has for conservatives.
His willingness to defend Gays pro-bono says zilch about his personal beliefs. You don't understand lawyers.
I have no doubts about Roberts. There is no evidence that Roberts is pro-gay rights and it is contrary to everything he has ever done. So what the firm he belong to did some pro bono liberal work, and they asked him to look over their work. I really don't see that proves anything except he did a favor for his friends in the office.
How many times will this story be posted today?
I won't. My only question is how hard to swing it back the other direction.
I'm standing in support until I hear more.
I guess I'm old and I've seen this happen too many times before. I expect the worst from our leadership and, regrettably, I am right more often than I am wrong. I respect your trusting nature and sometimes wish I were more that way. But, at this point, I'm pretty sure Lucy has already yanked the football away, yet again, and the R's are running toward where it was with their eyes shut, smiling, thinking they are actually going to kick a field goal this year. Ain't gonna be no field goals for the R's this year.
The really interesting thing to watch will be how the White House spins the result to keep the conservatives coming back and whether that succeeds.
Those believing that Robert's service to past GOP administrations somehow proves his originalism need to examine that assumption in light of this case.
--The really interesting thing to watch will be how the White House spins the result to keep the conservatives coming back and whether that succeeds--
Unless of course Roberts turns out to be an excellent Justice...and Hillary doing the spinning for not having blasted him.
"My opinion is that someone has to do it and I'm glad they do."
When I was finishing my last year of high school in adult ed I became friends with a black girl who had been forced out of her school. She had been forced out of her school because her father was the defense attorney for 3 black men who had raped and murdered a white girl. The family was even forced to move simply because the man was doing his job.
Frankly I think it's pathetic that people are willing to attack Roberts for doing what all lawyers do. Maybe we should dig around in Roy Moores past, I'm sure we could find something that people wouldn't like.
--Those believing that Robert's service to past GOP administrations somehow proves his originalism need to examine that assumption in light of this case.--
Repeat after me, this says zilch about his personal opinions.
Hence the definition of the word, Mr. Obvious.
I don't know who Roy Moore is but you can bet if he's an Attourney he's done something like this. They all do and they're proud of it (as they should be). Show me a speech or written opinion or thesis or something. That's the only thing that would scare me.
--I don't know who Roy Moore is but you can bet if he's an Attourney he's done something like this. They all do and they're proud of it (as they should be). Show me a speech or written opinion or thesis or something. That's the only thing that would scare me--
Maybe I spoke too quickly where Roy Moore is concerned :)
You must be right. I only practiced law for 25 years with a lot of appellate work pro-bono work. Had I practiced for 30 years, I might understand them.
Frankly, I don't care about his personal beliefs. He could be a wiccan gay transvestite for all I care as long as he will interpret the constitution as it is, and not as he wishes it were.
Serious people don't do pro-bono work to advance bad constitutional law. Pro-bono is volunteer, for free, time that you contribute because it is a good thing to do. When you take on constitutional cases, you do them pro-bono to advance good constitutional law. Romer was very bad constitutional law.
Kind of like darkness has for Light, Satan for Christ... They should dread the evil they present. Otherwise we are just like them.
But I find that most often it is not the left that dreads the right (which should come naturally), but it is those one the right that deny Truth when they hear it.
If Christ were responding to this, do you think he would be so kind?
50 million babies have made this the single greatest abomination since the beginning of the world.
When Christ likened the Pharisees as to "white washed tombs filled with dead men's bones" or "their mouths like that of open sepulchers", "hypocrites", "full of every abomination"...it was over his healing one man's hand on a Sabbath, or a man blind from birth, or even a single cripple that laid beside a pool for decades. He was angry with those that claimed to know Him.
How much more guilty are we that should know Christ and yet are unwilling to fight as 50 million innocent die.
I don't worry so much about how those that never found God respond to my message...it is those that have, like the Pharisees, that claim too, that worry me the most.
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.