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 ...
Why do I have the suspicion that this is an attempt to get conservatives to oppose the nomination?
Yes, the dobsonites will scream over this one. It sounds more like a friend helping a friend....as opposed to th subject matter of the case.
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.
Heres the updated link http://bluemassgroup.typepad.com/blue_mass_group/2005/08/john_roberts_he.html
This should be forwared to the NYT reporter ginning up the controversey of Roberts' adoption of two blonde haired babies from a mostly brown haired Latin America.
I hope you're right. I have to admit, this story gave me some concern.
Because you are right. And it gives the Chicken Littles on FR something to talk about.
Notice that his name isn't on any documents that pertain to the case. He only gave advice about briefs and arguments.
The White House may well not know anything about his work in the case.
And it might actually gain him some vote with the Dims in the overall Senate vote.
The White House vetted this guy and had no knowlege of the case?
So you are alright with your state taxes going to employee benefits for couples with AIDS, etc.
Sounds like a classic "divide-and-conquer" tactic to me as well.
Chorus Bi Partisans:
He's a lumberjack Supreme Court Justice and he's OK
He sleeps all night and he works all day.
I cut down trees, I eat my lunch
I go to the lavatory.
On Wednesdays I go shopping and have buttered scones for tea
Mounties Democrats:
He cut down trees, he eat his lunch
He go to the lavatory.
On Wednesdays he go shopping and has buttered scones for tea.
Chorus bi Partisans:
He's a lumberjack Supreme Court Justice and he's OK
He sleeps all night and he works all day.
I cut down trees, I skip and jump
I like to press wild flowers.
I put on women's clothing and hang around in bars.
Mounties Republicans:
He cuts down trees, he skips and jumps
He likes to press wild flowers.
He puts on women's clothing and hangs around in bars?!
Chorus The entire 'Hill' now:
He's a lumberjack Supreme Court Justice and he's OK
He sleeps all night and he works all day.
I cut down trees, I wear high heels
Suspenders and a bra.
I wish I'd been a girlie, just like my dear papa!
Mounties Just the Democrats this time:
He cuts down trees, he wears high heels?!
Suspenders...and a bra?!
...He's a lumberjack Supreme Court Justice and he's OK
He sleeps all night and he works all day.
...He's/I'm a lumberjack Supreme Court Justice and he's/I'm OK
He/I sleep all night and he/I work all day.
Here now..juss 'avin a litahl fun..
I'm inclined to agree with Coulter that "good enough" doesn't cut it, not when we control the Senate and have a VP tie-vote breaker.
We ought to be going for "demonstrably and clearly proven" not merely "good enough, even if that means a one-vote squeaker win. The last thing we need is an apparent conservative who is ready to jettison his conservatism to advance emotion-based judical legislating on behalf his favorite oppressed ersatz victim group.
I think this will be properly addressed at the hearings, probably by Brownback or Santorum asking him this question. (hopefully)
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.