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 ...
The trouble is that while Bush's rhetoric is filled with red meat, what he does doesn't seem to measure up. Stealth nominee? That's too strong. Holding action is more what I would say.
I think they didn't have the stomach for a big fight right now, and figured if they could just do better than O'Connor, and get through without a fight, that would be good enough. Set a precedent for being reasonable, get the nominee through without a filibuster, and then put the hammer down with the next nominee.
The trouble with that approach is what we saw throughout the first term--temporizing and promises that after the election, THEN he'd get tough. In particular, when you are talking about a lifetime appointment with no electoral oversight, you damned well better be right in your assessment of the guy.
One pro bono case does not make a liberal, but it's not a good sign. Let's see how they handle it. Or, as someone said upthread, wait for the hearings before freaking out.
But it does not look good.
Here's a link to the decision and Scalia's dissent.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/romer.html
Remember, the issue in the case is not, 'is this a good law.' It is 'does the constitution prevent a state from passing this law.' The majority decision in the case treats the two questions as being the same.
"i just don't understand why he doesn't fight more for Conservative causes." - Sir_Ed
Maybe it's because President Bush is not conservative?
This is where the rubber meets the road, and our side doesn't seem to be doing such a good job defending this guy.
I need to take back my previous comment about Rush--I should've listened longer before commenting.
A caller named Keith expressed his concerns, and after that Rush went into more detail on the case history.
Rush gets it constitutionally.
He thinks questions need to be asked.
(Thanks for the heads up on Levin's show. Perhaps I'll tune in for the first time. :-)
Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
I stand corrected. What I should have said is that under the rules of ethics, an attorney shouldn't (as opposed to can't) turn down a case he or she is otherwise qualified to handle, simply because the attorney disagrees with the client's position. (EC 26 - EC 23)
I agree that this where the rubber meets the road. But it cuts both ways here--there's a substantial element on this thread that says doing anything other supporting the President's choice should be anathema. That kind of naivete has not worked out well in the past wrt the court.
This guy's gonna be on the Court for decades. At this point, the President is saying "Trust me." We've trusted previous presidents. That trust didn't work out well. There are yellow flags here, and this case is another one.
I'm not saying red flags. I popped over to Coulter's site, and think she's over the top on this, prejudging the case. But to support this guy without scrutiny, based on past history, seems risky to me.
Whatever Ann Coulter may be, there is one thing that she rarely is: wrong.
This is precisely the problem.
From a hardball political point of view '04 was the perfect storm. The movement conservatives turned out in huge numbers. The moderates split, going slightly right.
Roberts is an attempt to hold this pairing--to keep the movement conservatives without losing the center. I think they might have made a bolder choice if the news cycle had been a little more favorable.
The lurking question underneath it all is whether the DC republicans are really committed to the movement conservatives. Roberts leaves that question open--purposefully, so that he can slip through the confirmation process painlessly.
So now you have to ask yourself something. Do you trust the President and the RNC? There are some here who say "Of course I do. And so should you. Stop sowing dissent." They have a point. But they better be right.
And Ann's current editorial was written before the LA Times article came out last night.
Of course he is. He sees his job description as a cheerleader for Bush, so he's not going to subject a Bush nominee to critical analysis. Instead, he'll change the subject by talking about the motives of the people who brought this fact to light, rather than talking about the fact itself.
Roberts didn't have to lend assistance to attorneys - even in his own firm - who were trying to perpetrate this atrocity on the constitution.
Sen. Reid already thinks that Roberts is another Souter. Read the latest issue of the New Yorker. Reid is interviewed, and that's what (according to the writer) he says.
People here who know nothing about Roberts talk as experts as they try to explain away the few things we start learning about him. He voluntarily helped a case that was promoting a radical gay agenda. And people who don't know him at all post on Freerepublic to mind-read Roberts, assuring us he really doesn't support the cause he was helping. How in H to they know? I have to go by what someone actually DOES, especially when I have nothing else -- no intimimate knowledge of him - to tell me he actually thinks something else.
And unfortunately succeeded..
Apparently this is of little concern to certain FReepers. "Don't worry--GWB picked him".
Uhm, yeah..
GREAT Post! Agree 100% -- especially your comment that "The gay rights lobby is powerful and exceptionally well-funded. This work classifies as "pro bono" only because the firm Roberts was with was simpatico with the broader social engineering goals of the left. The decision to provide pro bono assistance in this instance was for reasons of politics, not compassion."
In this Pro Bono(?) case, Roberts could have and should have declined to take this case, if he had any moral or ethical qualms at all about helping to advance the pro-gay agenda....apparently he does not. I think the conservative majority in this country has just been handed another Kennedy-Souter stealth moderate-liberal in the form of John Roberts. Pres Bush has revealed himself as a stealth moderate now after winning 2 POTUS elections by pledging to rein in judicial activism with Scalia-Thomas type jurists and instead nominating a questional nominee like John Roberts!
I predict that the Bushbots who are trying to explain away this gay-rights activism by Roberts will continue to minimize the importance of liberal decisions that he makes from Supreme Court bench. This is how conservatives become liberals - - by redefining "conservatism" as "anything Bush does, or anything that a nominee of Bush does."
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.