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 ...
Well, I guess your "Always Right"...
--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.--
I knew I had made a mistake in saying "personal beliefs". I meant personal opinions.
Frankly I find it astonishing that you would not take a case as a lawyer that you had problems with. I thought lawyers acting as lawyers and lawyers acting as judges were two different things.
You don't have access to bomb-making materials I hope. :) You sound a little like a Christian jihadist.
Yes, but Roberts did not take on the pro-bono work, the firm he worked for did. Roberts did not argue or write briefs, he simply reviewed briefs as a favor to his firm.
"Show me a speech or written opinion or thesis or something. That's the only thing that would scare me." - bkepley
So, on sheer faith you assume his originalism? That was what was done with the O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter nominations. In contrast, clear ideological track records were already there for Rhenquist, Scalia, and Thomas. Which group has upheld originalism?
How is the fact that he devoted time, voluntarily and without pay (which may be described as a "donation") -- to a particularly radical gay "rights" legal case, ----- how does that fact "tell you he is really a conservative"? For me, it explains why Sen. Reid and Sen. Feinstein smiled broadly when Bush announced this nomination. IN the latest New Yorker, Reid says Bush nominated Roberts at a time of "political weakness" -- the nomination was designed to avoid a fight, Reid said. Reid says he foresees Roberts becoming another Souter on the Supreme Court.
He wasn't obliged to participate.
Unless you step back and see that nearly all Judges were once lawyers. Then you realize, there isn't much difference. A day comes when a lawyer, is granted more power and thus by OJT and a waive of the wand, presto, instant Judge...Now I see the difference.
LOL. Clueless as always.
About what? the guy gave of his time - voluntarily - in the service of a terrible gay-rights legal case. The Romer decision that resulted has embedded some very bad principles in American law. You may be able to "Laugh out loud" that, but I can't.
--So, on sheer faith you assume his originalism?--
I have not heard anything that leads me to believe that he will be anything but excellent, I do have sheer faith in GWB's track record. Is this pro-bono work he took what I should base my opinion on? There are instances of Scalia and Thomas disagreeing on important issues. Does that make either one of them a Souter?
--That was what was done with the O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter--
GWB is not his father or even Reagan who made some pathetic appointments from the get-go.
Careful that evil has not poisoned you into believing that to die for Christ means taking thousands along with you in a ball of fire. The difference between an Islam jihadist and a true Christian is that in Islam one must kill others, namely non-believers, to see God, whereas, a true Christian is willing to give up his own life to save the life of another (remember "there is not greater gift").
It is always easy to see why Christ was so feared. It doesn't take a bomb, it only takes a "Word", or "Truth", maybe even raising someone from the dead that scares the living hell out of us.
But to be honest, I believe that the gift OBL has given to the world is exactly what evil wanted, to make everyone believe that any true relationship with God can only lead to a jihadist mentality. And therein lies the root to next great persecution.
"GWB is not his father or even Reagan who made some pathetic appointments from the get-go." - bkepley
Evidently, you believe that Treasury Ex-Secretary Paul O'Neill was a good appointment. No more needs be said about your judgment in these matters.
"GWB is not his father or even Reagan who made some pathetic appointments from the get-go." - bkepley
--Evidently, you believe that Treasury Ex-Secretary Paul O'Neill was a good appointment. No more needs be said about your judgment in these matters.--
Talk about your non-sequiturs.
One of many instances of Bush and his henchmen conveniently revealing a soap-opera level of memory loss on important matters.
When working pro-bono, you do that because it is a good thing to do. It is an attorney's free, volunteer time. I tried not to advance bad causes when working pro-bono. Roberts advanced a very bad constitutional position when he didn't have to.
It would be a little like if I had some spare time and decided to work for John Kerry. A bad thing I didn't have to do.
--It would be a little like if I had some spare time and decided to work for John Kerry. A bad thing I didn't have to do.--
That's not exactly what happened.
From the article -
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.
Once he took the case, he should zealously represent the client. The issue is: why did he get involved in the case in the first place. He didn't have to.
--That's not exactly what happened. --
Of course it isn't. That's why I said it's a 'little like . . .' It was an analogy.
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.