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."
"I am sorry but that is the most contorted analysis of our Constitution that I have ever seen. Having children does not give people special and different rights."
Exactly. It's a limited and inaccurate reading of the Preamble (which isn't law, anyway).
In the future, PLEASE do not put words in my mouth, OR assume to speak for me.
Got it, Pal??
You didn't misunderstand his posts. You understood them perfectly!!
He quite clearly a socially liberal atheist libertarian. On another thread last night he without apology or qualification placed Islamofascism and conservative Christianity on the same moral plane. One is just as bad as the other in his peculiar universe (I suspect he has never lived among Islamofascists, and so I am willing to chalk his hyperbolic ranting up to ignorance of experience on a truly monumental scale).
I have no idea what he is doing in his bedroom that he is concerned about Big Brother seeing. I certainly don't want to know and I can almost guarantee Big Brother doesn't want to know either. The "aggrieved" homosexuals in Lawrence v. Texas discovered, much to their chagrin, that Big Brother wasn't interested in spying on their bedroom activities either. But they were determined to create a test case to take to the Supreme Court so they connived and conspired to have the police break into their bedroom on a ruse so they could force the issue.
And SCOTUS rewarded their cynical conspiracy by reling that no state legislature shall be allowed to make laws outlawing sodomy.
Scalia warned in Lawrence that the ultimate goal was gay marriage forced on all of America.
That's a horrific price to pay in deference to a few perverts' demand that Big Brother not be alllowed to see what Big Brother has no interest in seeing in the first place.
Our legislatures have been weakened by these decisions, throwing off center the balance of power that the founders so painstakingly built into the Constitution.
You both make some good points here- clearly you are both intelligent gentlemen. I view this story as a method , by the liberals, to divide the President's supporters- not much more than that.
This kind of "sudden" news coming out is only expected when the President makes "stealth" nominations.
For conservatives, this story has very little to do with leftists trying to divide us.
Or doesn't the GOP not want someone in favor of judicial activism on the bench?
"From the posts here, he just served as a pretend judge in practice."
I don't think that's true. From what I've read, he helped shape the argument. He wasn't just part of the mock trials, he actually helped determine the direction of his firm's case from them.
BTW- I homeschool my children to avoid homosexual propaganda upon them and I am about as conservative and as Christan as one can get.
Of course I am not an Evangelical conservative however. Nor am I an LA times supporter or a person who underestimates our president, and I do not hate all homosexuals- so I don't see this as a big deal.
Respectfully, then you do not understand.
This has to do with the Constitution.
Time for the "mainstream" media to divide and conquer conservatives...
10 hours does not reshape such a brief. 10 hours is nothing in lawyer time.
Based on all the comentary here and sifting out the MSM BS and outrights lies.
It was just moot court assistance. How to present the arguments and make sure you know the basics of the lower cases. Anyone who was a member of the moot court honor societies would probably have known that basic stuff so he was probably imparting that to the newbie.
"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."
That's my read on this as well. Any attorney will tell you that the client's views do not necessarily represent the attorney's views, and that any good attorney will provide a zealous case for the client.
What it looks like is that we have a nominee, who cannot be opposed by the 'Rats for any other reason than the fact that he's Conservative, and the 'Rats are on notice that that argument will NOT fly. So, here we go with the left wing media machine, trying to see what will stick...
Let me clear it up. I have friends who made their wives the business owners and all of a sudden they won contracts previously refused. They were now a minority owned business. I worked on the fringes of contracting in the USAF and that was indeed a "bonus".
More specifically, I reviewed bids as part of one of my jobs.
No. I don't have a limited intellect. Actually, I've forgotten more than you'll ever know.
What you are is a homophobe. And you know what they say about those who holler the loudest, don't you???
Once again, Miss Ross, I agree with you. I totally agree with your sentiments.
And since I was born and raised in Philadelphia, just let me say this : Great job with the flag, Betsy!! :-)
That sums it up very well. But you should have included that "some" Conservatives seem to be working along WITH the left wing media machine on this one. Sad, isn't it??
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.