Roberts'Gay Bias Case Role Debated(some on FR being played like a fiddle by the LA Times)

LA Times ^ | 8/05/04 | Maura reynolds

[CA Conservative]

John Roberts did not volunteer for this case.

Source?

Read the LA Times article. He didn't volunteer, he was asked to help out.

[CA Conservative]

My concern is that he accepted a pro bono case in a situation where a strict constructionist would have serious reservations.

Roberts didn't accept the case, nor did he decide it would be pro bono. That was done by others in his firm. From all indications, he was asked to help prepare another attorney for what she would face in oral aruments.

[Soul Seeker]

IMO, it isn't a positive nor negative sign on its own. What that information about being asked to play Scalia does is provide context, and a fuller picture of the circumstances IS good and tempers the one sided picture formerly being given.

[Cincinna]

"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."

All the Conservatives jumping on the trash Roberts bandwagon should take the time to find out just how a Law Firm operates. It is a business, and managed as such.
Lawyers are assigned cases. Younger lawyers have no choice which cases to accept.
Major Law Firms do a certain amount of "pro bono" work, i.e. for free.
It is reaching the ridiculous to demand of a candidate for SCOTUS that he never worked in a Law Firm, and never worked on cases you disapprove of.
Roberts record as a Judge is excellent.
Leave it to the VLWC to trash Roberts. He is a good man and you are all playing into the hands of the "divide & conquer" Left....once again.

[k2blader]

Exactly.

I would like to know what Roberts believes regarding this issue.

If he is against the decision of the court, great.

But let's at least hear it.

[tazannie]

"I would like to know what Roberts believes regarding this issue.

If he is against the decision of the court, great.

But let's at least hear it."

Agreed, however is this one of those things that he couldn't comment on? like Roe v Wade, is it considered "settled law"? I'm just afraid we won't be able to find out his views.

[k2blader]

I'm just afraid we won't be able to find out his views.

Same here.. :-\

[msnimje]

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]

TRUE. Reminds me of the following quote;
There is no man so good, who, were he to submit all his thoughts and actions to the laws, would not deserve hanging ten times in his life. •Michel de Montaigne

[k2blader]

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!

Weeding a hopeless front yard is absolutely futile, but I did it anyway..

[Jim_Curtis]

If he had volunteered to help out a pro-abortion group in a similar circumstance, would that have been okay too?

This line of argument is ridiculous

The answer to the question is, "yes"...isn't it? If he had "played the role" in the hypothetical case that he played in this case?

[ZULU]

Thanks. Other posters have clarified that and it makes him look better.

Guess this was just another New York Slimes Smear Job.

[msnimje]

He's probably pretty good, but we don't really know for certain

It is not too hard to find out where he stands. He has been a lawyer, judge and educator for 25 years. The White House is releasing 75,000 pages related to his work. Seek and ye shall find, just do not rely in the MSM to tell it straight.

[msnimje]

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.

How many of his decisions have you read? How many of the 75,000 pages released by the White House have you read? What about his award winning college essays? How many people who have known him for 30 years have you talked too? On what grounds do you make the statement that Roberts looks to you to be liberal?

[Sirc_Valence]

Tell me how you get from that to Souter. This should be fascinating.

Compared to what we know about John Roberts, Souter was a dream nominee.

As New Hampshire attorney general in 1977, Souter opposed the repeal of an 1848 state law that made abortion a crime even though Roe v. Wade had made it irrelevant, predicting that if the law were repealed, New Hampshire "would become the abortion mill of the United States."

He filed a brief arguing that the state should not have to pay for poor women to have abortions – or, as the brief called it, "the killing of unborn children" and the "destruction of fetuses."

Wait, seriously – who is that guy on the Supreme Court and what has he done with the real David Souter?

Souter vowed in a newspaper interview to "do everything we can to uphold the law" allowing public school children to recite the Lord's Prayer every day.

As a justice on the New Hampshire Supreme Court, Souter dismissively referred to abortion as something "necessarily permitted under Roe v. Wade" – not exactly the "fundamental right" he seems to think it is now.

Souter openly proclaimed his support for the "original intent" in interpreting the Constitution.

The fact that Souter decided – like Warren, Brennan, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor and Kennedy – that he would prefer to be a Philosopher King rather than a judge once he got on the court doesn't mean you never can tell with any of these guys.

--Ann Coulter, Read My Lips: No New Liberals

I understand that libs don't care whether their representatives and "standard" bearers are mendacious, corrupt, and historically proven to be prone to commit subterfuge against America. If anything, they relish it. So what kind of Conservative suggests that the US Constitution does not protect the right to life, as Sou.. I mean, Roberts, did, as he assured libs that he would uphold stare decisis? Why signal allegiance to judicial oligarchy?

Remember Ann's column quoting Newt Gingrich: "Virtually every conservative who knows [Souter] and trusts him thinks he's a competent guy."

Yes, Newt was wrong!

The irrefutable point that Ann has made in her last two columns is that this guy really appears to be a crap-shoot. I can't call that good.

k2blader, that's why this dude mentioned Souter, not because you brought him up, but because he does appear to be another sneaky and untrustworthy lib. We don't need a stealth Scalia, a Scalia wouldn't be sneaky about his beliefs. If he were a Scalia, we would have known where he stood on the left's assault on America's founding values.

I don't think we know enough yet to be sure about Roberts. Again, that can't be a good thing. If he is a sleeper for the left, he might have "slipped" when he volunteered to support homosexual activists.

Here are some noteworthy comments by a few FR posters

Thrusher

[Roberts] 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.

StonyBurk

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.

K2blader

It was voluntary work. He didn't have to do it, but he did.

Some of us would like to know why. And we'd like to know if he agrees with the SCOTUS's ruling, especially since he helped bring it about.

Ann pointing out the reasons why "Republican presidents named 'Bush' - have lost the right to say 'Trust me' when it comes to the Supreme Court nominations."

The other reasons are: Earl Warren, William Brennan, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy... Roberts would have been a fine candidate for a Senate in Democratic hands. But now we have 55 Republican seats in the Senate and the vice president to cast a deciding vote – and Son of Read-My-Lips gives us another ideological blind date.

The way that the Soviets penetrated US intelligence during the Cold War, their ideological soulmates/former comrades have done the same in academia and government. We can't rely on Republican politicians to defend against such threats, when they seem to be making the same errors "in the ring" by keeping their hands down and repeatedly getting hit by left hooks. Ann is on our corner yelling, "keep your hands up", because we're not. If America takes another blow to law and order, a self-inflicted one the in the further empowering of an alien and deleteriously corrupt ideology, it will blacken the name of George W. Bush. Americans should pray that that is not the case here.

[Brimack34]

I still would have picked Janet Rogers Brown. 1 to piss off liberals. 2 to make the Senate do something to end filibuster. 3 I know where she stands. 4 I do not trust the pick.

[StonyBurk]

I disagree-both involved the disregaurd for the rule of law. In Alabama the Honorable Roy S.Moore acted well within his rights. As AG Pryor was sworn to defend the State and
the Law.He chose to trade his integrity fo rpolitical ambition and judicial seat. (god complex + job security) He defended the construct of the Court over the rule of Law.
In Colorado curly Perm Judge Bayless announced his opinion before he heard the case then backed off a bit -yet defended his political pre judged opine. Then when it passed to the unjust Judges in drag on the supreme Court -
Kennedy,Breyer, Souter, and O'Connor proved just as willing to deny States rights and the clear language of the
Constitution to promote a destructive and lawless agenda of
political correctness. In both cases the LAw was rejected
in favor of the will of a godless few.