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 ...
Someone should pose this question to the WH staffers themselves, because I doubt Roberts will answer the question for this own sake.
Thanks for the update.
"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."
I'm an attorney and can tell you that you are wrong. Slavery has been abolished, so there is no requirement that I work for anyone against my will. The only exception may be with regard to court-appointed representation. That exception would not apply here.
The Court found that the STATE Amendment as voted on by the people of Colorado violated the FEDERAL Constitution. Article VI states that the Federal Constitution is supreme over state constitutions, and that all Courts are bound by this. Having found that the Amendment did violate Amendment XIV, it would have been unconstitutional of the State Court to uphold the state amendment, regardless of who voted on it.
If you want to argue that the State Court was wrong to find that Amendment 2 in Colorado violated Amendment XIV in the Federal Constitution, that's a separate question.
So far, both callers on the topic have been supportive of Roberts.
Yes. Emphatically dissented.
No question that the left just opened up a full frontal assault on Roberts, just in time for the Sunday talk shows to pick it up and run with it while the president is on vacation. The Borking is on now, full steam ahead.
Um, 'cause it is?
But it should have the same effect as Kerry "outing" Mary Cheney. We already knew it and loved her, we didn't care.
He's good enough, and gosh darn it, people like him.
Thanks again!
But, because the conservative movement as a whole is so spineless, we're left to hope, pray and cross our fingers that Roberts is somehow an originalist, despite his repeated statements that he will honor precedent and has worked for free for gay activists in advancing their cause and striking down Constitutionally-passed laws by states.
Just keep drinking the Kool Aid until reality sets in and one wakes up and finds nothing has changes once again on the Supreme Court.
Rush is going to this in depth right now.
We've won, and it's time for us to act like winners. (which means nominating a candidate like Janice Rodgers Brown)
Lawrence vs. Texas, that was the case that overruled previous precedent, Bowers vs. Hardwick, thus legalizing homosexual sodomy. For me, the important part of this case is that a Supreme Court case CAN be over ruled, including Roe vs. Wade. Roberts said he would respect Supreme Court precedent, and Lawrence vs. Texas now IS Supreme Court precedent......
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.