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 ...
Now serving post #5 of this very same story...do I hear #6...6, anyone, anyone??
The point being?
Awl Reddy Poasted.
I think we are ok on this one xzins. Notice the play on words. 'Dontated'. The left is taking this, running with it and playing more and more with the words on every article I see.
The left is doing this to turn us off on Roberts. Which tells me he is really a conservative.
My post 5.
oh I am sure we will see at least 10 posting of this same story...
who knew FReepers read the LA times with this much frequency?
I know I'm tired of the hypocrisy of the whole thing. We don't want democrats using abortion as a litmus test but we can use gay rights as a litmus test. We don't want a judge who is a judicial activist but we want him to rule the way we choose.
Re#5 Yep. What it appears to me is that Roberts was an appellate specialist, he was consulted on an appeal by his partners and he provided consultation. Were he behind the case, he would have been on it and argued it bfore SCOTUS. Big 'effin whoopee...
Didn't we already cuss and discuss this earlier? About one hour ago?
Ann Coulter couldn't be right could she? Like maybe we need to look deeper and just a touch more critically before we get stuck with another Souter....
Nahhh - last post I responded to on this issue indicated that most Freepers don't seem to support that position. We'd rather be shamed another time than by trusting another Republican President to make the right choice (that is than fight for what is "right")
LOL! The purpose in posting the same story several times is so the dimwitted FReepers will think that there are multiple instances of Roberts doing this and he may have done some pro bono work for gays this morning as we type.
Well, it'll certainly be interesting to see what Roberts has to say when the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy comes before the Supreme Court next session.
I'm with you.
Gays shouldn't have any more rights than the rest of us.
--Gays shouldn't have any more rights than the rest of us.
Like the right to be represented in court?
Frankly, we do not want an unelected SC justice to promote and push immoral behaviour on the majority of society. The people should decide and polls continue to indicate most Americans are normal.
I am still taken bets that she is dead wrong.
Then they have succeded with this conservative. I was on the fence until now. 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.
No person devoted to the interpretation of the Constitution as it is, not as the left wishes it were, would have contributed his time, for free as a volunteer, to effect one of the worst supreme court exercises of judicial activism in the past 50 years. Romer was a terrible decision, in some ways, far more radical than Roe or Lawrence v. Texas.
--Frankly, we do not want an unelected SC justice to promote and push immoral behaviour on the majority of society --
That's a pretty strange take on what lawyers do. My opinion is that someone has to do it and I'm glad they do.
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.