Right Wing Upset with Roberts Pro-Gay, Pro Bono Work (NY Slimes Quotes El Rushbo)

PageOneQ.com/ New York Times ^ | August 5, 2005

[gopwinsin04]

The New York Times reported in Friday's editions that radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, James Dobson of Focus on the Family, and Collen Parro of the Republican National Coalition for life spoke negatively about the latest disclosure of stories that surround Judge Roberts legal career.

Reports of Roberts involvement, [in a gay rights case] generated outrage and disbelief. 'There is no question that this is going to upset people on the right,' Rush Limbaugh told his listeners.

'There is no question that people on the right are going to say, 'Wait a minute! This guy is doing pro bono work and helping gay activists?'

James C. Dobson, chairman of the evangelical group Focus on the Family, said Judge Robers work in the case 'was not welcome news for those of us who advocate tradtional values,' though he said that he did not necessarily mean that Judge Roberts had shared the plaintiffs views.

Colleen Parro, executive director of the Republican National Coalition for Life, and one of the few conservatives to raise questions about Judge Roberts, said his work on the case 'was cause for more caution and less optimism about his nomination.'

The conservative American Family Association's president, Tony Perkins, attempted to downplay the significance of Roberts contributions to the case by writing: 'We are told that Roberts role was apparently limited to providing a few hours of participation in a moot court procedure as he routinely did for all of his clients.'

What Perkins omitted from his newsletter was that in fact Roberts provided key strategies for fashioning a majority on the court.

The strategies were described by lead attorney Jean Dubofsky as the successful strategy she used to win the case, according to the Times.

[gopwinsin04]

El Rushbo even has the Slimes listening, maybe they like to hear themsleves torn apart everyday.

[kharaku]

If this Roberts guy gets in I' thinking long and hard before I vote for another 'righty' claiming he will correct the balance on the supreme court. Bush totally stabbed the base in the back with the nomination of this jerk.

[zarf]

Bush totally stabbed the base in the back with the nomination of this jerk.

Another caveboy speaks.

[Last Dakotan]

I'm interested in hearing from the one man on this who hasn't said anything yet - Roberts.

[Thrusher]

The Slimes completely distorted Rush's take on the situation. He expressly said he was insulted by the media assumption that all conservatives are homophobes, and thus the Roberts' "pro-gay" pro bono work would turn conservatives against Roberts.

Rush's actual concern was for the underlying legal point that Roberts' work undermined: he fought to judicially overturn a ballot initiative voted on and approved by the citizens. That is exactly the kind of judicial activism true conservatives don't want to see on any court, much less the Supreme Court, whether or not it has anything to do with homosexuality.

[gopwinsin04]

This is troubling if the report is true that Roberts actually was integral in helping win this case.

This gal could be overplaying his role in the case

[kharaku]

Yeah caveboy, I'm sure that's how Bush is looking at the folks who got him elected too.

Fact is the base was rallied on the notion of fixing the Supreme Court.

Fact is it's a republic president, house and senate.

Fact is Bush's best pick is a guy who worked for free to get gays special treatment in Colorado.

Fact is that's not the kind of Supreme Court fixing the base was sold on.

[nairBResal]

bttt

[lmavk]

I'm putting my tin foil hat on...what if this is all a smoke screen to throw the libs off track. I mean, if you are a lawyer with really high aspirations, thinking ahead, and want to be a supreme court nominee, somewhere in your career you do a little pro bono work for a liberal cause and voila, the libs think you are ok, your nomination sails through, and you get a really good conservative on the court.

ok, hat is off

[EagleUSA]

Rush's actual concern was for the underlying legal point that Roberts' work undermined: he fought to judicially overturn a ballot initiative voted on and approved by the citizens. That is exactly the kind of judicial activism true conservatives don't want to see on any court, much less the Supreme Court, whether or not it has anything to do with homosexuality.
------
Exactly. But saying Roberts FOUGHT for this is not really accurate in that it is noted he "provided advice" in the matter. But the issue is correct and the concern is correct -- in that Roberts HAS ALREADY STATED that he supports "settled law" -- which in this case, was overturned by judicial action, which Roberts provided advice into.

This IS THE REAL ISSUE.

[Sen Jack S. Fogbound]

I understand that all lawyers (or least in some states) are required to take so many hours of pro-bono works each year in order to keep their license. They don't always have their choice of clients.

Just another attempt to pile on distorted dirt on Roberts.

[gopwinsin04]

It was reported that Roberts played a 'Scalia like' role in the moot court procedure questioning the lawyers in oppositional questions they might face from SCOTUS in the courtroom.

[sr4402]

The New York times wants "Right Wing(ers to be) Upset with Roberts Pro-Gay, Pro Bono Work". That's what the NYT wants.

[CedarDave]

Sean also discussed this yesterday; it rang alarm bells with him, too. I was interrupted and didn't get to hear Levin's take on it. Anybody hear and characterize what Mark had to say?

[kharaku]

Why is it so hard to beleive the obvious? Bush sold out. Roberts is another Souter.

[Mike Darancette]

How many here believe that a Partner of a prestigious law firm personally does most of the work on pro bono projects?

[HawaiianGecko]

 

 

	I'm looking for a SC Judge that will interpret the law correctly without any prejudices. If "correctly interpreting" a law happens to help gays, so be it. I damn sure don't want him to misapply and abuse the law simply to promote a concept that I or anyone else might hold. I keep reading posts from many that seem to want to replace left wing judicial activists with right wing judicial activists.

!

 

I'm looking for a SC Judge that will interpret the law correctly without any prejudices. If "correctly interpreting" a law happens to help gays, so be it. I damn sure don't want him to misapply and abuse the law simply to promote a concept that I or anyone else might hold. I keep reading posts from many that seem to want to replace left wing judicial activists with right wing judicial activists.

[cvq3842]

Correct.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

1. Cheney is pro-gay
2. The Bush Administration did not fight the Lawrence decision.
3. While Bush supports the FMA, he is otherwise pretty pro-gay.

It would not surprise me if Roberts were pro-life and pro-gay just like the Vice President. How you square the Romer case with Roberts anti-judicial activist comments is beyond me, but it certainly is a strong possiblity that Bush would choose a Romer supporter. And may I remind everyone that Romer is now the case being used to argue for overturning state marriage amendments. That's exactly what happened when the federal activist judge overturned the Nebraska Marriage Amendment. The same arguments are being used as were used in Romer, only now they have precendent on their side. So Bush can't really support a FMA that would return the issue to state legislatures AND be indifferent on Romer.

[proud American in Canada]

I understand that all lawyers (or least in some states) are required to take so many hours of pro-bono works each year in order to keep their license. They don't always have their choice of clients

That's exactly right.