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 ...
What did Levin say?
He seemed strongly pro-Roberts at the start.
You're welcome! I wanted to make sure people understand that Roberts did not own the lawfirm nor was he an independent lawyer. When people work for a big lawfirm - you get the prestige of the name, but you follow orders just like any other employee.
And some apparently think that G. W. Bush is God. Of course the L.A. Times has leftist motives; duh. It doesn't necessarily follow that their story is factually inaccurate.
I bet in 1990 you ridiculed conservatives who had qualms about Souter.
JMO, Mark Levin isn't immune to LA Times spin and Ann Coulter, well she's Ann Coulter and goes off the handle sometimes.
Didn't we all agree that it was dirty pool when the Democrats applied that standard to Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, and Janice Rogers Brown?
Exactly. I hope these kinds of questions are asked, and his answers made clear to conservatives.
This is much too important an issue, and event (since if confirmed, he's going to sit on that bench for a while to come), to dismiss with a "Don't worry, he'll be fine..."
And duh, you fall for them, IMO.
Ideology is linked to qualification.
Or do you think someone in support of judicial activism is perfectly qualified to sit on the Supreme Court?
From a Daily Kosser: "I'm tired of smiling in the face of Rovian dirty tricks. That's my justification for conducting a one man smear campaign on a conservative justice- besides, spreading the rumor that he's gay wouldn't piss off anyone I respect, which makes the rumor that much more entertaining."
Sounds to me like the libs are in love with this guy.
Rove planned the whole thing at the time of Romer.
Did he donate time to them or not? Was he helpful in this case or not? Is the case now being used to overturn state marriage amendments or not? The truth is the truth even if the source is corrupt.
Rush never jumped on the Souter bandwagon and you know that.
And a corrupt source corrupts the truth.
The information is definitely welcome and appreciated from someone that understands and has worked in the same environment.
I'm not concerned so far, the majority latching onto this are the same anti-Bush anti-Republican "purists" that seek to torpedo anything are the main ones speaking about this. Only a couple of credible people have voiced concerns, and they aren't the vocal ones on this thread. That these people think those that frequent this board do not recognize who they are is laughable.
Now if the credible posters raising concerns should rise beyond a couple, than I'd pay attention thinking we had a problem.
Even though I'm leaning towards Coulter's view, that doesn't mean I think his nomination can or should be withdrawn. It only means that Bush lied to us and nothing more.
What an elitist post.
*LOL*
No offense intended, but that is an amusing way to put it.. :o)
But pegs you accurately, doesn't it? :-)
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.