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."
The sad part is that so far, it seems to be working. Unbelievable some people could be this stupid to actually fall into the "MSM" trap, they say they dispise so much.....
Homosexuality is a mere sexual fetish. A sexual fetish which does nothing to provide for ourselves or our posterity as indicated in the "we" of we the people.
You are right to simply drop it in the same catagory of mere behavior.
Society rewards certain conduct, punishes other conduct, and even ignores irrelevant conduct. Since homosexuality is mere recreation it would fall in the second two categories.
Homosexuals have to ignore their irrelevance to the propagation of society and rely on feeeeelings. This is why they only refer to "we the people" part of the preamble but ignore the rest of it.
From my own experience, 10 hours is not enough time to do ALL that in an appeal.
You can direct oral presentation of a brief, but that is form far more than substance. Seriously, whoever is pushing this story KNOWS this and is just twisting the nature of moot court practice to manipulate those who are unfamiliar.
What about it? That verse certainly doesn't contradict the Biblical teaching on God's full authority over EVERY area of life.
Even the very "rendering unto Caesar" is to be done to the glory of God.
False-disjunct fallacy.
I still insist the islamofascists have a lot in common with religious whacko's who try to shove their religion down my throat.
Christophobia.
You don't claim the Bible as yours, apparently.
Surely liberals can be religious, can't they?? Wrong as they may be, they still can be religious.
Duh.
So, I guess that they interpret their bible or holy book differently than you. Is that a correct assumption??
implicit relativism. Leftists judges interpret the constitution differently than I do. That does make their interpretation as legitimate as mine.
And by the way, when asked what he thought about Jerry Falwell, that was Barry Goldwater's reply. I didn't know we (Goldwater supporters) were atheists. Barry was an Episcopalian, just for the record.
What do you believe regarding God and Christianity?
It's always what it comes down to in these cases..
Another thread says the right is down playing it. Which is it?
Obviously not. Anyone can have morality, but not everyone can JUSTIFY the BASIS of that morality. You honestly need to pay more attention.
I keep them separated.
It's becoming more apparent that you actually don't keep them separate.
Religious fanaticism on either side is equally repugnant.
You seem pretty fanatical to a Biblical worldview.
Not sure how many Roberts threads you've been on, but some FReepers are definitely trying their very best to downplay it.
Some are even going so far as to defend (or ignore) the judicial activism of the ruling in question.
It's always what it comes down to in these cases..
EXACTLY, my friend.
What's sad is that many of these same FReepers are the very ones who've complained for years about leftist judges appointed by Republicans, and they'll be the first to cry if this Roberts proves to be anything less than they hope for.
You wouldn't be trying to shove your beliefs down my throat, would you?.
"And you might want to try thinking istead of reading someone else's opinions..."
"I am a Goldwater Conservative, and one of the best things Barry ever said was that "someone should kick Jerry Falwell in the ass".
Hmmm, Are you thinking, or are you reciting someone else's (Goldwater) opinion???
Thanks for spelling it out.
My reply: COLOSSIANS 2:8-10: "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ."
"For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority."
2 CORINTHIANS 10:4-5: "The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of this world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.
We demolish arguments and and every pretension [even POLITICAL ones] that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought [even POLITICAL thoughts] and make it obedient to Christ."
Yes...but what did Jesus say on the subject?
Gee .. does the article from the LA Times mean that libs now like Roberts???
Sorry .. I ain't buying it
Exactly how much time to Roberts spend on this case ??
I thought I heard on the radio it was about 6 hours .. that ain't a awhole of time for a lawyer in a case this big
It is my belief that both the extreme left wing and the extreme right wing have that common trait.
I agree.
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.