Posted on 08/05/2005 9:26:55 AM PDT by Dane
Roberts did not mention his work on the case in responding to a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire that asked for examples of his pro bono work. Roberts' involvement was first reported Wednesday by the Los Angeles Times.
Jean Dubofsky, the lead lawyer for gay rights activists challenging the Colorado initiative, told The Times that Roberts gave her "absolutely crucial" advice on how to argue the case before the Supreme Court.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Roberts spent less than 10 hours on the case, compared with more than 200 hours he spent on two pro bono cases on which he was the lead counsel
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
He assisted another partner in a law firm with a case becuase he had specific experience. That's what law firm partners do. If you want to hang the man for being a good lawyer, then I'd have to say you are about as reasonable as your average 'Rat Senator on the Judiciary Committee.
Roberts was not even AN attorney on the case.
This is just a dirty Rat trick because they have nothing else to stop Roberts.
As a boss it is part of my job to make sure I have trained employees.
The "help" roberts gave was to a lawyer of the firm. Training which later on can be used by PAYING clients.
4 of the last 7 SC GOP appointments have turned out to be liberals. Roberts looks to be another. It for reasons lie this that I am no longer a loyal GOP voter.
Right you are. Especially when you consider he has worked about 50,000 hours as a lawyer and a judge. The libs have dug through this history and come up with about 10 hours were he advised lawyers in his firm about the appellate procedures of THEIR case, not his.
And I am not catagorically defending Roberts on this case.
Is it a red flag? Yes.
Does it mean he is unsupportable? No.
I imagine some here would attack a lawyer who wrote a will or did a bankruptcy for a homosexual dying of aids as a pro bono case.
If you think Roberts will be as bad as Breyer and Ginsberg, then I hope life on your planet is better than here.
Thank you, but *opinions* from blogs and a senator don't cut it.
If it can be proven that Roberts worked on the case against his will, the dynamic of this story should indeed change.
We won't know for a fact unless Roberts or his former boss comes out and says, "It was not voluntary."
I'm on the phone now with my brother (XJarhead) who is a partner in a law firm and we're laughing at the sheer ignorance on this thread.
Not even red flag, more a yellow alert for further investigation.
What does that reveal? The attorney pushing this story severly misrepresented the Roberts participation. The attorney pushing this story now works for a loony left wing group. The MSM outlets that are pushing this story are trying to IMPLY he was on the case officially as an attorney of record when in fact that was not the case. (even if you work for a firm, the lawyer who signs the pleadings is the one who is responsible)
Based on the forgoing, it is just a blip. the left wings best shot.
This angle sort of makes the case that we shouldn't be looking for a lawyer to be put in a position where we expect high principles.
O.K. Take a deep breath. Count to ten, let it out. There, does it feel better? Good.
I'm sure my posting is but is a pimple on the mountain of concerns you may have in life. Hardly worth getting so agitated.
My concern is not that Roberts has a homosexual agenda.
My concern is that he accepted a pro bono case in a situation where a strict constructionist would have serious reservations. This isn't just me tlaking, nor is it the LA Times. Its Mark Levin, a Constitutional Attorney with solid conservative credentials who intially supported Roberts, perhaps still may, but has recognized a "small red flag" with respect to this issue.
Like Roe versus Wade, giving homosexuals protection against employer discrimination is an issue simply not addressed in the Constitution. It has nothing to do with ethnic or racial or religious discrimination. It concerns an issue of personal morality.
Consequently this conserns me, and it should concern you also if you are a conservative.
And my only "agenda", if you want to call it that, is to make sure that another Souter, Bader-Ginsberg, Warren, Douglass, Breyer, Kennedy, O'Connor doesn't slip through the gate and wind up on the Supreme Court to create more legislating from the bench.
I'm sure you feel the same way.
So lets hope that in the hearings about a man all of us know so little about, our concerns will be assuaged, or, if not, another candidate will emerge and et selected.
Getting the Supreme Court on track and off the left-wing turn it took was one of the very salient reasons for supporting Bush in the first place.
There is a lawyer philosophy and a judicial philosophy and they are different. The fact that he was the lead appellate attorney for a firm with 1000 lawyers all over the world that took on all sorts of cases should make it clear that he was obligated to help those lawyers with the procedural aspects of their appellate cases. I think that says something positive about his principles as a lawyer. Also, consider the fact that he has spent about 50,000 hours as a lawyer and a judge (2080 hours times 25 years) and the best the libs can come up with is this 10 hours. How about we look into the other 49,990 hours?
Thanks, I needed that. LOL. I have no patience for people who jump to wild conclusions based on next to nothing as evidence.
You and I went through this on the notion that the President would nominate Estrada for the post. All the hand wringing on that one proved to be for naught. There had been no indication coming from the president that he was even considering Estrada. Maybe he was; maybe he was not. Yet, the nervous nellies here were having conniption fits over it.
There's a time for getting all worked up over something, and we're not there on this nomination (for conservatives anyway), by a long shot.
It wouldn't benefit the left at all if conservatives scrapped this nominee. If that happened, it would be the end of the whole "crawling around in the dark trying to sneak in a conservative" culture they have cleverly crafted and we have obediently played along with.
They wouldn't get a less conservative nominee in his place. The only reason I could see them playing this game is if they have a known liberal commodity waiting in the wings, one that we all believe would be a "sure thing" conservative because they know the next one would be a "sure thing" after the incident that would have just occurred to make the new nominee necessary. But I think that conspiracy scenario is far fetched.
I think we have an exchange over Gonzales, not Estrada, but in any case you were correct.
I hope you are correct again.
So now we must push Ann Coulter and Mark Levin to the lunny wacho fringe if we are to be good Republican huh?
Have you ever heard me call Ann Fringe? You may have read I won't consider her remarks, but did you read why? Because she's engaging in a number of character attacks in the midst of raising concerns. Others have raised concerns and you don't hear me writing them off which brings us to Levin. I haven't written him off, infact I listen carefully to what HE says, I promote Levin quite often, but then he's not engaging in character assassination nor declaring he's going to "war" with the administration. To finish off your third lie, I'm not a Republican. I don't assume everyone posting here is a Republican. So how YOU can state I believe in order to be GOOD "Republican" they must have the view I hold, is a laugh. I take it you've never witnessed my rants on people labeling Republicans' "RINO"'s when they are 86% conservative, or even Liberal? A Good Republican is someone loyal to Party. Not necessarily to a particular ideology, and I've stated this a number of times which is why I'm not a Republican.
Now one must believe that the homosexual life style or anal sex, is a just a normal healthy life style choice and that homosexual sex is the moral equivalent of heterosexual sex in order to be good Republicans.
Amazing how you pull this out of thing air and attribute it to me. Again, another example of you tossing mud and not knowing what the hell you are talking about.
Now we must support the lawyers and laws that normalized deviant sex and is seeking to normalize deviant sex with children to be good Republicans huh?
More garbage I didn't state. Ever tired of slinging mud and having it stick to you? Did I state agreement with the Supreme Court ruling? I've done quite the opposite. Has Roberts stated agreement? Nope. If he had you'd have something far more substiantial than what you put up in this questionable reply. You are really stretching here. You might try reading the reply from an actual lawyer in the first page of the thread that takes quite the different view of his pro bono work than you, but that would be inconvenient to your bias to consider anything that contradicts it.
I'd bet yall wonder why conservatives are fleeing the GOPO as fast as they can.
That is fascinating, isn't it? And yet if true, it's amazing people are still here trying to peddle third parties desperately while the GOP continues winning. If you are going to make a contention like that, I assume you have the research to back it up...right?
For the record, since this seems to have enflamed you and I understand why since I pegged many of you correctly, "credible" posters on this subject don't all agree. I know it escaped your notice (intentionally) but I did note I'd seen some people dissent that I would respect deserve a polite answer. The difference between them, and many in this thread at the time I wrote "credible", is exactly what I noted in my full response. Most of the people whining at that time were/are the people that blast this administation on everything, blast the President on everything, stated he'd pick Gonzales without proof, stated the president was a liar and would never appoint a real constitutionalist even before he'd announced his choice, the same people that have an agenda the very opposite of the majority on the board which is to grow the conservative movement. The very people that can be counted on for a bad word when the news is good, to crawl in a hole and disappear so they won't have to address great news, and always the first to arrive if news is bad. These are not people I have any respect for, and as witnessed in my replies, I make no apologies for it. If that bothers you, TOUGH. The idea that the majority on this board, whether hesitant or fully supportive of Roberts do not know their are "purist" subversives intermingled among the DU operatives on this board is fanciful. I've merely stated what everyone knows and won't retract it.
Now that I've satisfied my "fun" quotient, go stew about this reply or rant and rave back, I don't really care what you have to say but I do wish you a wonderful afternoon. ;-)
you're right. gonzales.
just saw your prayer req. will pray,
sorry. cat's walking all over keyboard. hard to type.
Thanks.
I would not even say that he "accepted" the case.
At best I would say he participated in lawyer training.
There is much misunderstanding here as to what a laywer can and can not do. There is also a misunderstanding in what the obligation of a senior partner is to the training of junior lawyers of the firm.
To me Roberts did not "take" this case. If something negative happened regarding the case's laywers conduct, he was not on the hook. He was not AN attorney on the case.
That said, did he TRAIN a lawyer how to act and what to expect befor an appellate pannel? Yes he did. That is cheep insurance in keeping the firm from being embarrased by some junior lawyer botching simple courtroom behavior.
Also, since they had a seperate pro bono division. Attorney autonomy in client representation is a HUGE issue. Roberts did not choose the case, the pro bono division independently chose the case and apparently the FIRM's lawyers had little or no experience arguing appeals cases.
People need to get a grasp of the terms involved and not let the LA Times sucker them down the primrose path.
Folks, 10 measly hours is NOT alot of time to spend on an appelate case.
Did he file a notice of appearance? NO
Was he an attorney of record? NO
Did he accept the case personally? NO
Did he write any of the pleadings? NO
Did he write the brief? NO
Did he give advise beyond Moot Court preparation? Unknown, but apparently no.
The MSM is being INTENIONALL sloppy so they may decieve. Call them on it, show the MSM is trying to fool us.
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.