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 ...
And to think -- we could have had Janice Brown!
Rush mentioned that some on the far right would get upset by this...Rush didnt seem too concerned though.
The far right ahs so much invested now in thinking Bush will betray them, that the ywill jump on any sign that Roberts isnt a conservative....all his writings indicate he is indeed quite conservative.
""If Roberts' name is withdrawn, which Bush will almost certainly refuse to do, he would likely be replaced by an even more conservative nominee who would ultimately be confirmed. That won't help the left.""
that is not how the left thinks...seek and destroy one nominee at a time, no need to think ahead
so Reid is right and Bush is wrong?
I think you need to actaully rad some of Roberts writings, we is more conservative than people originally thought he was.
I don't know what Bush thinks about how Roberts would rule on Roe or on Gay Rights. Reid clearly thinks Roberts will uphold Roe - and will support a lot of the liberal agenda. The only evidence we have right now is that Roberts was the environmentalists lawyer in an anti-property rights case that Reid loved, and Roberts helped the leftist lawyers in one of the most radical gay-"rights" cases.
That's my point.
what about his work in the Solicitor Generals office and his other writings?
Teh far right was so vocal and so insistent that Bus hwas going to nominate Gonzales. They expected even wanting to be betrayed..they went so far out on a limb that they would look like fools if Bush nominated a conservative. Thus the far right ahs a lot invested in proving that Bush has betrayed them.
re Ann's date line:
Good point. thanks.
I hope I stated that clearly. The court ruling said that the family had the right to decide who to rent to and this ruling was appealed to the State's Supreme Court. (don't remember what state is is)
later read/ping/?
That is precisely the 'homosexual agenda,' as it is the liberal agenda--have government force everyone to accept and approve of everyone else's behavior.
F that. I want to be able to stop my tenants from dancing to 'I Will Survive' at 4 a.m. I want to be able to rent only to married couples who have both been surgically sterilized and don't have pets, or to only guaranteed 100% flaming homos if I feel like it so they'll redecorate. And I want to be able to associate, in business and in private, with whoever I choose, not who the gummint says I have to.
The liberal agenda is so pervasive you don't even know that what you're advocating isn't liberty--it's government enforcing what it considers liberty.
"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)"
You stand corrected again. An attorney doesn't have to take ANY case pro bono that he doesn't agree with, under the rules of ethics. And this was by all indications pro bono. That means since he wasn't committed to taking this case, and he wasn't being paid for it, the work he did was not based upon his ethical commitment as a lawyer to serve clients' interests, but primarily upon his own answer to the question, "Is this a case I want to work on for FREE?"
The answer here was yes. I think that's pretty relevant. Sure he's on staff, and sure, it'd be a bit odd to tell your co-worker, nope, can't help you on the gay thing. But this is a huge help to a cause he's nominally against, judicial activism. The folks who asked earlier if we could see Scalia doing this have a good point.
And I was tilting towards Roberts before this after wobbling a long time on the issue. I thought his mark in the margin about pissing off Tribe and other judges by reading the law was a good indicator. Now I'm back to being pissed we have to worry about it.
Why do we have to worry about it? That's all I want to hear from the Roberts fans. Why has there ever been any question here? I know, you think he's a lockstep conservative. We disagree on that point. My question is why is there any doubt--why couldn't Bush appoint someone no one has any question about?
I don't think assisting a colleague in a case, without making an appearance in it (and we don't know the extent of Roberts' assistance) means that he approves of what the case was about. But, even if it does, I think his position on pro-life issues (again, as far as we can discern) trumps the gay rights stuff.
A crazy thought crossed my mind this morning as I read the New York Sun. I think Roberts is turning out to be a libertarian rather than a conservative.
As much as I like the idea of ballot propositions (because it gives the average voter a chance to voice their opinions)--there's always a strong chance that they go too far. I think both the judicial and the legislative branches of government aren't too keen on ballot proposals because it takes the power away from them and puts it in the hands of the people.
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.