Posted on 08/04/2005 7:24:05 PM PDT by freedomdefender
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--In a revelation sure to cause worry among conservatives, the Los Angeles Times reported Aug. 4 that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts assisted homosexual activists in the mid-1990s in their preparation for one of the most important cases in the history of the "gay rights" movement.
Roberts did not write any legal briefs or conduct oral arguments in the case, Romer v. Evans, but he did donate his legal expertise to homosexual activists as part of his Hogan & Hartson law firm's pro bono work, the Times said. "Pro bono" is a term that refers to legal work that is donated for free, generally for the public good.
Roberts' assistance in "reviewing filings" and helping prepare oral arguments was "instrumental," attorneys involved in the Romer case told the Times. Roberts also took part in a mock court panel in helping the lead attorney prepare for oral arguments, the Times reported. Roberts reportedly played the role of a "Scalia-like" justice.
The 1996 Romer case involved a voter-approved constitutional amendment in Colorado that prevented the state from giving civil rights status to homosexuality. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court struck down the amendment, saying it violated the Constitution's equal protection clause. At the time, it was considered the most significant legal decision to date for homosexual activists.
Walter A. Smith Jr., who was in charge of the Hogan & Hartson pro bono department, said Roberts was open to helping when asked.
"He said, 'Let's do it,'" Smith told the Times. "And it's illustrative of his open-mindedness, his fair-mindedness. He did a brilliant job."
Mat Staver, president of the conservative legal group Liberty Counsel, said Roberts' involvement in the case is "something to certainly be concerned about." Staver argued a Ten Commandments case before the Supreme Court earlier this year.
"We need more information to find out the facts behind what Judge Roberts did when he was working on the case," Staver told Baptist Press. "But if in fact the story is true, it is clearly concerning because, according to the story, Judge Roberts did not hesitate to get involved to work on this case pro bono.
"... If in fact he did this, this would be contrary to everything I've read about him thus far. This was a state constitutional amendment passed by the people. For the court to strike that down, I felt, was judicial activism."
One concern, Staver said, is what Roberts "would do on the Supreme Court if he had a same-sex marriage case come before him."
The L.A. Times story was the focus of much talk radio Aug. 4. Conservative talk show host Sean Hannity said he now has "some" doubts about Roberts.
"It's the first sign I've seen where his conservative judicial philosophy ... may not be as solid as what I thought," Hannity said on his radio program.
Attorney Jean Dubofsky, the lead attorney for homosexual activists in the case, said Roberts' advice was "absolutely crucial." At the time Dubofsky worked for the homosexual activist group Lambda Legal. She took part in oral arguments.
"Everybody said Roberts was one of the people I should talk to," Dubofsky told the Times. "He has a better idea on how to make an effective argument to a court that is pretty conservative and hasn't been very receptive to gay rights."
The news about Roberts' involvement in Romer came days after the Senate Judiciary Committee released his answers to a questionnaire. Asked to list his previous pro bono work, Roberts did not mention Romer v. Evans.
"John probably didn't recall [the case] because he didn't play as large a role in it as he did in others," Smith told the Times. "I'm sure John has a record somewhere of every case he ever argued, and Romer he did not argue. So he probably would have remembered it less."
The fact that it was pro bono work -- which is voluntary -- should be of concern, Staver said.
"At Judge Roberts’ level, you wouldn't be working on a project in a firm that you disagreed with," he said.
Roberts' questionnaire had helped to ease conservatives' worries. In it he said that "it is not part of the judicial function to make the law" and "courts should not intrude into areas of policy making reserved by the Constitution to the political branches."
"[J]udges must be constantly aware that their role, while important, is limited," he wrote. "They do not have a commission to solve society's problems, as they see them, but simply to decide cases before them according to the rule of law."
Said Staver: "Up until now I haven't seen anything that would have caused concern, and I have been pleased with what I have read and heard about Judge Roberts. This [the involvement with the Romer case] is the first indication of any concern and it clearly needs to be addressed."
There's nothing to it. His firm had a client; he was helping his colleagues prepare for the case. It was a case of professional courtesy.
I personally hope this gets played up as much as possible. Makes it harder for the Angry Left to get any traction on him. I dont want anyone to feel ostracized for any reason. I want everyone to be treated equally.
In other words as a white southern hetero male, I want the same benefits as all minorities. I dont want my friends to have to make the head of their small businesses their wives so they can get minority contracts with governments, I want them to be able to compete on a level playing field!
Sorry for the early derail :)
You've got it right.
Let's think this through. Since we already know most Republican Senators don't give a flying fig about what Conservatives think, Roberts shouldn't have to worry about losing any Republican Senator's support.
On the other hand, gay rights activists should come out (no pun intended but kinda funny nonetheless) in support of Judge Roberts.
Hmmmmmm. Ya think?
John Roberts may have given his "legal expertise" but how should we define "legal expertise" and what does that constitute?
You know, lawyers need to earn a living too. We do not know how much of his "legal expertise" was used to turn over the votes of American Citizens in Colorado.
And, furthermore, just because some lackey left wing pro-democrat butt kissing newspaper comes out with this so-called bit of news, does it make it so terribly wrong for John Roberts, lawyer, to give "legal expertise"?
Well, Sen. Reid seems to like Roberts, too:
One thing [Reid] asked [Roberts] was how he felt about Supreme Court precedents -- in particular, on what grounds they might be overturned. "Precedent is so important to me in the law," Reid told him.
Roberts, Reid recalled, said, "'Oh, on the Supreme Court you can change precedent only if there's this and this,' and he was rattling them off. I hope I didn't act surprised, but I'd never heard anything like that before." Roberts, in Reid's view, left no doubt that he would be very reluctant to overturn precedents. To do so, Roberts had said, the Court would first have to consider a series of objective criteria, two of which stood out: whether a precedent fostered stability in the nation; and the extent to which society had come to rely on an earlier ruling, even a dubious one. "I thought it would be more of a weaselly answer than that, but he said you have to meet all these standards before you can change a precedent," Reid said.
that's a snippet from a recent New York Observer piece.
The only people I see concerned are liberals who 'claim' that conservatives are upset - but I haven't heard much in the way of concern from 'actual' conservatives.
Did you see Hardball tonight the reporter from the New Yorker was on saying Harry Reid is practically gloating that Roberts is going to be like Souter in upholding liberal precedent.
Roberts told Reid that he will not ever overturn precedent unless it is a dredd scott type of case. Roberts said there has to be 7 different criteria met to overturn precedent.
In the article Reid is saying Bush choked from the pressure of the dems and bush gave into the dems.
John Roberts will not overturn any of the bad precedent that we want overturned from roe v wade to affirmative action to eminent domain.
Roberts will be conservative on rulings that haven't been before the supreme court but what hasn't been before the court before.
Roberts views the constitution as a living democracy he isn't an originalist and he puts more weight into stability in society in not wanting to overturn precedent.
Roberts is no originalist he will be just like Sandra Day O'Conner.
People that think he is going to be like Renquist are dreaming, Renquist is not so rigid in staris decis as Roberts is.
Nothing to it? Roberts choose to work for FREE and donate his time to aid the cause of homosexual rights activists. One doesn't work pro bono unless one believes in the cause.
Roberts has been the legal counsel for gay rights activists, what's not to like if you're Harry Reid?
What is infuriating about the new yorker piece is that Harry Reid has the nerve to say that David Souter upholds precedent he is just being a lawyer.
Souter has no trouble overturning precedent he doesn't like with the recent death penalty and eminent domain case.
I have seen enough of Roberts that I can guarantee that the number of true conservatives on the supreme court will stay at 3.
Bill Kristol said it best about Roberts that he is no originalist like a Luttig he is an incremental conservative.
He won't legislate from the bench on new cases and will take a limited govt role in new cases. But he will uphold all the horrible judicial activism on the court over the last century.
Anyone that can't see that Roberts is a precedent believer to the core isn't reading him right.
If you are looking for any case that has come before the supreme court before where you didn't like the ruling and want it overturned forget about it with Roberts.
If I was a conservative senator I wouldn't be voting for Roberts.
Absolutely. In fact, it would behoove him professionally and morally to offer such help to a firm that had made him a millionaire. In addition, the fact that he did not play a large role in it is noteworthy. For all we know, he spent a couple of hours over a weekend looking over the papers and offering some technical guidance.
That would be true if he was involved in it in a substantial way. In this case, his involvement was peripheral, from the looks of it. For all we know, he spent a few hours looking at papers and offered technical guidance. It is not like he was the lead counsel in this case.
Roberts was asked by a lawyer to help out on the gay rights activist case.
That doesn't bother me at all since Roberts took all cases at his law firm.
What does scare the daylights out of me is his rigid view of precedent.
When Roberts says he will not legislate from the bench he will interpret the law those words don't have the same meaning as coming from Scalia's mouth. To Roberts the law is precedent not the constitution. So he will interpret precedent even if it is dubious precedent he said.
I blame Bush's advisors for Roberts they wanted someone confirmable and that was it. They had to know that he was no originalist.
From the fine Lawyers at Powerline:
"Nor am I concerned if, as the Los Angeles Times reports, Roberts helped lawyers in his firm who were arguing before the Supreme Court, in a pro bono representation, that the Constitution protects people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation. Roberts was the lead attorney in his firm's appellate practice. I consider it natural that he would assist his colleagues in a matter like this. The legal position Roberts was helping his firm (and other attorneys involved in the case) advance regarding what the Constitution does and doesn't protect was wrong, I believe, as a matter of law. However, it was not immoral"
I guess you didn't listen to the Mark Levin Show today.
Mark is a Constitutional scholar and wrtote "Men n Black, How the Supreme Court is destroying America".
Initially very supportive of Mr. Roberts, today he said this case was a precedent setting one, one that in effect set the groundwork for homosexual marriages. He admitted this set up a red flag.
Ann COulter should change her name to Cassandra - Roberts is a liberal Trojan horse.
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.