Posted on 08/04/2005 9:10:32 AM PDT by gopwinsin04
It was reported today in the LA Times that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts gave substantial behind the scenes assistance, pro bono, to activists who asked the Supreme Court to overturn Colorado's 'Amendment 2' which prohibited municipalities in Colorado from adopting gay friendly ordinances and policies.
The case Romer v. Evans, was the gay movements fist significant victory in the Supreme Court and paved the way for the more recent blockbuster decision of Lawrence v. Texas which outlawed sodomy laws.
What to make of this? Is Roberts a clandestine agent of the dreaded homosexual agenda? More likely, he was just doing his job.
A partner at Roberts firm was working with the plaintiffs in Romer; and the parter asked for Roberts help, (Roberts being the best Supreme Court litigant) and Roberts agreed.
And having agreed, he gave his all, reviewing briefs, preparing lawyers for oral arguement, and generally being 'terrifically helpful.' That is exactly what lawyers are supposed to do.
This is, an excellent illustration of how difficult it is to discern a lawyer's views from his professional activities. I have no idea whether Roberts believed in his heart that the plaintiffs in Romer were right, but I will say this.
It is of course always open to a lawyer to decline to participate in a case because for whatever reason the lawyer cannot in good consicence represent the client's interests in that case.
The fact that Roberts agreed to participate in Romer at least suggests that he is not vicerally, fundamentally opposed to the pro-gay result that the planitffs sought in that case.
And that, to me, suggests that he may not be the ideaologue that the Dobsonites want on the court. (Can you imagine in the plaintiffs in a gay rights case had approached Professor Scalia for his pro-bono assistance?)
(Excerpt) Read more at bluemassgroup.typepad.com ...
Rush explained the case well, but seems to e trying to stay away from the fight and not engage.
Here's a link to the Romer decision.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/romer.html
Read the decision and Scalia's dissent and see if you can find any constitutional basis for the Court's decision other than, 'we're the Supremes and we think this is a bad law. Therefore, it has to be in the constitution.'
Wrong, Rush said most people (conservatives) do not hate homosexuals and that is true. Most people want homosexuals to stay away from kids, quit flaunting depravity as normal, quit trying to bastardize marriage, quit trying to have special rights, and to just grow up. Hate is not Christian or conservative, it is for most Dems, who have little or no faith. a really Fine example is DU, they are so hate filled they are insane.
Yes, by all means, let's no know anything about what he's done or what causes he's supported, because that might be "an attempt to get conservatives to oppose the nomination." We conservatives should be deaf, dumb and blind to any facts that might suggest Roberts is not conservative. Bah, Bah, Bah, Sheeple!
That's not clear. What it does mean indisputably, is that he leant his talents -- free of charge -- to a radical gay-rights legal crusade.
What ignorant bilge.
So you think Roberts was looking at the case from that angle?
He can if its pro bono.
Thank you again.
I was thinking of Roberts' response to the senate question about precedent. One can respect precedent, including cases that overruled prior Supreme Court cases, including Lawrence vs. Texas, Brown vs. Board, etc. I don't know what Roberts' involvement was in the case he assisted on in an unsigned capacity. Intellectuals such as Roberts often are more interested in the argument and its form than the substance of it. Roberts is about the law, not policy, and that is as it should be, IMO.
Was this a Freudian slip or a flip of the verbal wrist?
They should be. Odds are, they have themselves another Souter. They have managed to void the R victory in the presidency and the Senate. Not a bad trick--they should be breaking out the champagne.
The trouble is that the strategy to pick a nominee with no paper trail cuts both ways.
And, call me unreasonably paranoid, but the administration has talked a bigger game than they've delivered on social issues.
If the reliable justices haven't come from Roberts' background. But they haven't.
You are unreasonably paranoid. Too many on this thread are on the fringe. Could we please stop behaving like Pat Buchanan reactionaries? Wait for the freaking confirmation hearings before picking the fly crap out of pepper just because you can.
Rush has not been silenced at all. Rush is sucessful at what he does because he does not bore the hell out of his audience by overkill on subjects that only a small portion of his audience are obsessed with. Most of his audience are conservative on a number of issues, they are not just anti-gay, and it is too early in this nomination to obsess and make everyone upset. We need to be pragmatic and not bitch about every single thing that comes up, especially when we know the LA Slimes record of hating conservatives. They are probably reading this thread like the DUmmies and are getting a good laugh at the over-reaction hysteria on this thread.
Go here and see if you think this didn't deserve mentioning. BTW it was eventually thrown out by a higher court, but this went on for a while.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1335699/posts
Sean Hannity is discussing this right now.
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.