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 ...
It looks like they may not have known, that's what scares me.
Hillary's "concern about borders" and their candidate in this week's Ohio race are a good example of the strategy. On the Roberts nomination the only hope they have is to have "super conservatives" oppose his nomination.
IMO, the "house divided strategy" holds lessons for ALL of us on the right in these latest fights.
Could Roberts refuse to answer a Santorum question about the case citing the Ginsburg rule? (if the case is indeed pending)
Yes. Jean Dubofsky was the lead attorney for the successful challenge to Amendment 2 by Evans, et al. That's who Roberts evidently worked with, and that was the side that Kennedy agreed with.
And by the time we know it might well be completely past too late.
One more lefty bitch on the court is the final shovel of dirt over the coffin of this republic.
Why does Ann Coulter's name come to mind?????
Yes, of course he could refuse. In fact, since the challenge is imminent, he should refuse. If he offers a prejudgment he will have to recuse himself.
Thanks!!
Bookmarking this thread.
Annie will have something to say about this in a column, I am sure.
Rush talking about this now.
I better tune in to Rush today. Hope he doesn't let me down on this one..
Rush says he will go more in detail to this issue after the break.
In a nutshell, what is he saying about it?
Well they sure as hell should have known........we don't want another Sutter!
Caller from Hollywood totes the Ann Coulter line on potential Souters and Rush agrees.
"The president's staff must have vetted this case already with Judge Roberts during the application process, if it was good enough for them--it's good enough for me." - gopwinsin04
That's certainly what Republicans said about the Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter nominations. Are those justices to your taste?
Who cares. Under the rules of professional ethics, an attorney can't turn down a case he or she is otherwise qualified to handle, simply because the attorney disagrees with the client's position.
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.