Posted on 08/04/2005 9:10:32 AM PDT by gopwinsin04
"Sounds like a classic "divide-and-conquer" tactic to me as well."
The WINNAH!!!
It warms my cockles to think that we are about to get another damn blue blood marginal conservative who suddenly goes liberal upon becoming a Justice. END HEAVY SARCASM!
You work in a law office and are the acknowledged expert on Supreme Court arguments. A colleague asks you to look over their briefs. You expect to continue working at the firm. What would you do? I think the MSM is overstating his participation in this case to split the right.
Neither can I.
In most cases, making a buck engenders the greatest loyalty in America. Attorneys are not immune from this principle (tongue in cheek). When freed from the reigns of "buckmaking," it indeed will be interesting to see where Roberts comes down.
Anyone who thinks they know the answer is blowing smoke. We won't know until the decisions are made. Conservatives have been burned too many times in the past. That's not being cynical, it's being realistic.
This has just assured that the hearings will be must see TV.
Great point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't think anyone can really know until we see Roberts make a comment at the hearings., I seriously doubt he will talk to about this to the press.
No one in America has done more to advance the pro commie pro sodomite agenda than the 'Slimes' group...
Simply divide and conquer..
How is this pro bono? His firm is being paid.
My guess is that Roberts the was only one at the firm with experience of arguing cases before the highest court in the land.
We'll know real quick so far as this topic goes. The Supreme Court will be hearing the challenge to Don't Ask Don't Tell next session.
After various Colorado municipalities passed ordinances banning discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing, employment, education, public accommodations, health and welfare services, and other transactions and activities, Colorado voters adopted by statewide referendum "Amendment 2" to the State Constitution, which precludes all legislative, executive, or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect the status of persons based on their "homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships." Respondents, who include aggrieved homosexuals and municipalities, commenced this litigation in state court against petitioner state parties to declare Amendment 2 invalid and enjoin its enforcement. The trial court's grant of a preliminary injunction was sustained by the Colorado Supreme Court, which held that Amendment 2 was subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it infringed the fundamental right of gays and lesbians to participate in the political process. On remand, the trial court found that the Amendment failed to satisfy strict scrutiny. It enjoined Amendment 2's enforcement, and the State Supreme Court affirmed.
The people of Colorado voted down special rights for homosexuals. The courts overturned the vote of the people of Colorado. IMHO, that is unconstitutional.
When a firm works pro-bono, they do not get paid by the client. However, if they win the case, the losing party often myst pay the legal fees of the case; this is especially true when suing the govt.. The firm was paid by the state govt. for expenses (including lawyer fees).
1. Because it is.
2. When leftists start pointing this out, simply turn right around and say, "Then this means he isn't a rabid conservative like liberals have insisted and you oppose him merely because you hate President Bush."
Actually, the folks who will be upset here are the folks who give a d##n about whether judges should just make up rights and put them in the Constitution. The Romer case was one of the extreme acts of judicial activism by the Supremes in the past 50 years. Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas dissented to the decision.
The pushers of this line do not understand what really good lawyers do. It is not about personal philosophy, it is not about religious philosophy, it is not about utopian ambitions you want to use "the law" to achieve. It's about the case - what does the law say, what does the law require, what is the extent and the limits of the applicability of the law, what is possible to expect under the law and what is not. Those are the questions that lawyers working on appeals pour over and disect - not social philosophy.
I can assure you that the 'acknowledged expert on supreme court arguments' at a firm is in no danger of losing his job over a principled refusal to do pro-bono work on a horrible constitutional precedent.
You are right - many are.
One of the upteen other threads on this subject had more details regarding this. the argument had more to do with the specific wording of the amendment, rather than the issue of homosexual rights (or whatever).
Improperly worded amendments are worth about as much as unconstitutional ones. Just because you agree with a particular amendment does not mean it can not be struck down for legitimate reasons.
Like someone already said, this sounds like a friendly gesture to a buddy at the firm, not a lot more.
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.