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.

[Thrusher]

I think "ModelBreaker" is aptly named. Most associates, and even some of the "lower-letterhead" partners in the big firms with which I am familiar do what they are told, regardless of their personal views on the matter. Why? Because there are two law schools within 20 miles of downtown spitting out a couple hundred new attorneys every year (for better or for worse) just waiting to take their spot when they get canned, and they have families to take care of and bills to pay.

[Sloth]

If "correctly interpreting" a law happens to help gays, so be it... I keep reading posts from many that seem to want to replace left wing judicial activists with right wing judicial activists.

I'll be charitable and assume you are ignorant of the Colorado law in question. This was no case of "correct interpretation."

[Brilliant]

I guaranty you that if you fly-specked the records of the people you named, you'd find stuff like this.

If it makes you feel any better, Roberts and Luttig are very close friends. But looking for the "signs" really does not guaranty a conservative pick. You look for the signs, but there is a certain amount of luck in it. Roberts has very conservative credentials. But that's not enough to ensure a conservative pick. I'm not writing off Roberts yet. About two years into his service, I figure we'll know whether Bush miscalculated.

[XJarhead]

Isn't it perfectly normal for partners to help each other out with their respective areas of expertise, even on pro bono work?

Absolutely. If a more junior attorney asks for your help in preparing for an oral argument, or in guidance in how best to prepare arguments, you help them. It's just what you do.

[mtntop3]

We do not know the circumstances of this pro bono case as regards the law firm of which Roberts was a member.

We do know that it was, and is, a prestigious and highly respected D.C.law firm.

I suspect that had the firm been asked to provide the pro bono assistance in this particular instance, that there would have been fairly extensive and intensive discussions at the firm in regard to the case.

A conclusion may have been that it was incumbent upon the firm to provide the very best pro bono assistance simply because of the national social climate - anything less would have reflected poorly on the firm itself and conceivably could have led to the filing of an action against the firm for misrepresenting or, in effect, under-representing, the pro bono subject.

[Austin Willard Wright]

I suspect you are overanalyzing this. I doubt that these fine points made much difference to Roberts one way or another. He took this case, IMHO, for the same reason he did pro bono work to strike down welfare time limits e.g. for broader ideological reasons. Put simply, he does not believe in private right of employers to "discriminate" against gays. Use Occam's Razor.

[CyberAnt]

I said this on another thread and it bears repeating here:

"Having worked at a law office with 140 attorneys - I can assure people that an attorney does what they are told to do by a department head - Roberts would have had no choice in helping this group, and he would have had no choice in deciding if it was "pro bono" or not.

These issues [pro bono; taking certain cases] are office policy issues established by the partners of the firm, and are NOT determined by an individual lawyer who isn't a partner.

I believe the LAT is determined to drive a wedge between Roberts and the conservatives by trying to foment Roberts being a gay-friendly person (because the LAT people believe all conservatives are gay-haters)."

Remember, Roberts did not own the law firm, nor was he a partner. This would mean that although he had the prestige of working for that firm .. he would do as he was told .. the same as any other employee.

[HawaiianGecko]

"This was no case of "correct interpretation."

Then explain to me what ANY case being litigated pertains to?

[Sloth]

Then explain to me what ANY case being litigated pertains to?

Could you elaborate? I'm not sure what you're asking here.

[HawaiianGecko]

 

 

	You said this was not a case of "interpretation." I can't think of any case that is about anything other than interpreting the law. (At least they are supposed to be that way) If you mean that in your opinion the case was interpreted incorrectly (which I agree), that is a matter of debate and that is exactly what Roberts' side and their opponents were doing; right up to the USSC. Now if you are a believer in our system, which is based upon law, right or wrong... the USSC IS the final arbiter of debates. Again, whether they are right or wrong. Life is full of debate and people at odds always look for affirmation in some sort of "higher" authority, be it our parents as little kids, a gang of hoodlums to punch out the offender, a debate professor or the courts. The debate HAS to end somewhere. As civilized people we chose the courts. What this all boils down to is this, in my opinion. Roberts took a side based upon his belief of what the law says, or on the belief that he could make a good and valid argument on the subject, not because he is "pro-gay". It is pure speculation for anyone to say that he or even anyone in his law firm is pro-gay. I don't care how many articles are written on the subject, every single word in those articles is "hearsay". Now if John Roberts walks up to you and says he is "Pro-Gay" then you can firmly come to that conclusion. If you can find a written opinion of his where he clearly says he is "pro-gay" then we have some solid evidence. However, for people to say he is "Pro-Gay" based upon Romer v Evans is plain heresy. There is one final authority of debate beyond the courts and it has proven to be without a doubt the final arbiter. War! As professor Codevilla said "War in fact, is the ultima ratio, the decisive argument, on earth. Mankind's great questions are decided by war. The battle of Salamis decided whether or not there would even be a Greek civilization." The debate has to end somewhere and thank God, we strive to use the courts.   The error in the argument and in many arguments is that there is any separate class of people be it gays, women, blacks, beer drinking-softball playing-electrical engineers from Missouri or even Chem-E's from Arkansas.

!

 

You said this was not a case of "interpretation." I can't think of any case that is about anything other than interpreting the law. (At least they are supposed to be that way)

If you mean that in your opinion the case was interpreted incorrectly (which I agree), that is a matter of debate and that is exactly what Roberts' side and their opponents were doing; right up to the USSC.
Now if you are a believer in our system, which is based upon law, right or wrong... the USSC IS the final arbiter of debates. Again, whether they are right or wrong. Life is full of debate and people at odds always look for affirmation in some sort of "higher" authority, be it our parents as little kids, a gang of hoodlums to punch out the offender, a debate professor or the courts. The debate HAS to end somewhere. As civilized people we chose the courts.

What this all boils down to is this, in my opinion. Roberts took a side based upon his belief of what the law says, or on the belief that he could make a good and valid argument on the subject, not because he is "pro-gay". It is pure speculation for anyone to say that he or even anyone in his law firm is pro-gay. I don't care how many articles are written on the subject, every single word in those articles is "hearsay". Now if John Roberts walks up to you and says he is "Pro-Gay" then you can firmly come to that conclusion. If you can find a written opinion of his where he clearly says he is "pro-gay" then we have some solid evidence. However, for people to say he is "Pro-Gay" based upon Romer v Evans is plain heresy.
There is one final authority of debate beyond the courts and it has proven to be without a doubt the final arbiter. War!
As professor Codevilla said "War in fact, is the ultima ratio, the decisive argument, on earth. Mankind's great questions are decided by war. The battle of Salamis decided whether or not there would even be a Greek civilization."

The debate has to end somewhere and thank God, we strive to use the courts.
 

The error in the argument and in many arguments is that there is any separate class of people be it gays, women, blacks, beer drinking-softball playing-electrical engineers from Missouri or even Chem-E's from Arkansas.
 

[Sloth]

If you mean that in your opinion the case was interpreted incorrectly (which I agree)

That is what I mean. You said: If "correctly interpreting" a law happens to help gays, so be it. I completely agree with that statement, but it's irrelevant as this involved an incorrect interpretation.

Now if you are a believer in our system, which is based upon law, right or wrong... the USSC IS the final arbiter of debates. Again, whether they are right or wrong. Life is full of debate and people at odds always look for affirmation in some sort of "higher" authority, be it our parents as little kids, a gang of hoodlums to punch out the offender, a debate professor or the courts. The debate HAS to end somewhere. As civilized people we chose the courts.

I disagree. The courts are not the highest law in our system of government; the United States Constitution is. There is nothing in that document that allows SCOTUS or any other federal judicial body to overrule the Constitution or pretend it says something other than what it does. It does not make the judicial branch higher in authority than the executive or legislative.

Secondly, the Supreme Court had (obviously) not ruled yet on this issue when Roberts provided his help. So he was not defending established judicial precedent, he was helping the plaintiffs to create a new one.

[truth_seeker]

Not much reason to even hold the hearings, another month from now.

BOTH sides have tried him, in the press. BOTH.

[Keith in Iowa]

Bush did exactly as he said he would do: nominate a Originalist/Strict Constructionist to the SCOTUS. Frankly, I don't want a right wing activist judge as you apparently do. Activist judges, no matter what side of the spectrum they are from - are a bad thing.

[Mike Darancette]

Not most. But some. What's your point?

Sr. Partner says, 'do this Pro Bono and take this line' you do it. It probably was Roberts' turn in the barrel.

[republicofdavis]

"Sr. Partner says, 'do this Pro Bono and take this line' you do it. It probably was Roberts' turn in the barrel."

I'm sorry, I misunderstood your earlier post. I'm in agreement with you.

[kharaku]

Several thousand years of strict government supported religion propagated Christianity. 200 years of mindless religionless communism and capitalism have nearly destroyed it. I am not convinced that an activist right wing judge is not just the medicine the country needs to reaturn from this path, nor am I convinced Roberts will not side with president.

[zendari]

Yeah go vote for John Kerry if you want rightwingers on the court.

I'll wait till Bush's term is over before judging his nominees, thus far they have looked good.

[Keith in Iowa]

Dang. You frighten me.

[kharaku]

It's not a matter of voting for the other side.

If both sides load the court with liberals why vote?

[kharaku]

How so?

Try to think of exactly how much has changed for the worst since secularism.

Things haven't gotten better.

The churches are empty. The family is almost done for, it's certainly a minority.

Most children are born out of wedlock or without one parent.

Abortion is extremely popular.

What has the benefit been?