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 ...
I'll go with Rush/Hannity/etc., on this: I hope for the best, but am starting to get uneasy.
None of this would be happening if we knew more about Judge Roberts. I think the "no paper trail" strategy is foolish.
I won't predict that he will turn out to be another Souter, but he's starting to smell more like a Justice (Anthony) Kennedy.
I think we should be listing what little "tells" he actually has produced.
Has he written anything about private property rights?
Has he written anything regarding family law?
This BS about playing pretend judge in law firm training exercises is a distraction.
I do and I wish people would take 30 minutes to independently research things rather than make decisions based on research coming from the LA Times and their ilk.
Check out the opposition research on Judge Roberts.
Here is one site:
http://www.supremecourtwatch.org/roberts.aspx
He's probably pretty good, but we don't really know for certain.
I'd really like to read things like that. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be forthcoming.
Any bimbo that would reject any news story because it is published in the LA Times /Or th eNew York Times or ?
IS too stupid to converse with. I lived in Colorado the entire time this political decision/judicial sodomy was going down. Roberts seems No different than Pryor-- who
traded his integrity for political ambition and a seat on the bench. Roberts still has a cleaner record than Ginsburg -we will have to see if he is better than/different than any other Republican nominee to the Judiciary. (Souter and Kennedy come to mind) the problem IMO is not in the man himself so much as it is in the corrupt system divorced from the Rule of Law and ruling without fear of God nor man.
Ouch. That's a little harsh on Pryor. The debacle in Alabama wasn't nearly as important as what was foisted upon the people of Colorado by Romer v. Evans.
Thank you for clarifying that.
The labyrinthine convolutions of the legal system are not readily apparent to most laymen.
It makes me feel better.
I'm shocked. You mean Souter actually had a girlfriend?
Interesting find.
The DUmmy scumbag admits to manufacturing scummy rumors about Roberts, then the other DUmmy pipes up and agrees with his canard.
What do these people eat for breakfast?
A beard, at least.
"His exceedingly restrictive view of federal law-making authority -- more restrictive than the current Supreme Court's -- could threaten a wide swath of workplace, civil rights, public safety and environmental protections. In his years of service as a political appointee in the administrations of Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, Judge Roberts also helped craft legal policies that sought to weaken school desegregation efforts, the reproductive rights of women, environmental protections, church-state separation and the voting rights of African Americans."
Interesting complaint, coming from them.
Sounds like he worked against in-utero mass murder, forced busing, environmental wackos, the antireligious fanatics at ACLU, and vote fraud.
Rush has this figured out.
For what it's worth, not all of them were when they went up there.
It's a well-known phenomenon that liberals try to poach a Justice once they get up there. CBS's Supreme Court reporter, interviewed on another show, commented on the tendency of conservative Justices to "drift to the left" once they're appointed; he also said that there is no countervailing "drift to the right" that has ever been noticed in any liberal Court appointee.
This "drift", or subversion actually, has happened in several cases, most notoriously Kennedy's and Souter's, as well as Stevens's. In Kennedy's case, he was heavily lobbied behind the scenes through the law-clerk system. Some of the law clerks are activists and lobby the Justices by their selection of precedent and relevant law. In addition, Robert Novak reported Kennedy's being lobbied personally, one-on-one, by the dean of Harvard Law at an international judicial convention in Vienna, on the revisitation of Roe vs. Wade.
In Souter's case, the seduction was social, as mega-Democrat social doyenne (the late) Pamela Harriman "fixed him up" once he got to Washington and turned him into a star of the liberal party circuit, which turned his head and turned him into a liberal by social contamination. Novak reported that Souter, too, proved amenable to back-channel lobbying via the clerk system, which is often field-generaled by the clerks' former law-school deans, particularly so in the case of Harvard grads.
In short, liberals will leave no stone unturned in their constant efforts to poach Supreme Court votes and Justices for their point of view on everything.
It abrogated by decree the sovereignty of the People, and the power of the People to make a constitution.
Its practical meaning is that, as long as the Supreme Court can point to a clause here and there, they can micromanage state government and drive all public policy. It means that there is no state sovereignty and no Tenth Amendment. There is no reservation of power to the People at all, and nothing that the Supreme Court, in its discretion, cannot take away from them.
Any lawyers want to take a whack at that one?
I heard the same thing. But we're only supposed to think it.
Like it didn't matter.
You make an excellent point. Roberts would be the best choice to play that role.
This line of argument is ridiculous. Roberts didn't "volunteer" for anything. It's not like he saw that this case was coming up, and ran to the lead attorney, asking to be allowed to help out!
Roberts was asked, as the attorney with the most experience arguing before the Supreme Court, to help a fellow attorney prepare for oral arguments, primarily by serving on a "moot court" in the role of Justice Scalia. All this did what give the attorney an idea of the kinds of questions to expect. From what information is in the article, he did not help prepare the case, write briefs, research precedents, etc.
The lead attorney may consider his help critical, but only in the sense that she knew what kind of questions she would be asked, and was thus prepared to answer them. She still had to come up with answers that were reasonable and credible to the Supremes.
I am glad to see that we have so many people on this forum that are so pure that they have never done anything that they might not agree with in order to help a friend, family member or co-worker! [/sarcasm]
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.