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 ...
...Her recollections of the kind of man he was when she knew him well ought to reassure women and men who are concerned about how he will evaluate the great privacy issues of our time, such as abortion rights... "Having never married, I know everyone is wondering does he have the empathy to understand women's issues, and I think he would. It's not as though he's lived in a cave for the last 25 years. He has many friends and I'm sure many women friends and I'm sure he's very aware of the impact of abortion on women's lives and men's lives, as well. He's very well-thought-of by his friends, both men and women."
-- The Washington Post, July 27, 1990. "Former Souter Girlfriend Says He's Fair-Minded", by Judy Mann
Surely Souter's obviously a staunch hardcore constitutionalist who's been misrepresented as a moderate/liberal by the mean old media.
And the glowing articles from the Wash Compost or NYT in 2005? They are far and few between.
I guess you missed the 800 post thread where the NYT is going after Roberts kids.
The NY Times going after Roberts kids is totally indefensible and inexcusable.
But them they aren't called the New York Slimes for nothing. Hopefully continuing vicious tactics like this will loose them more and more readers. Even their book review su#$$.
Roberts may not be a gay activist, but his views on Consitutional Protection for sodomists is hardly a case of "strict interpretation". I don't care what somebody does in the privacy of their home, as long as its consentual, but I don't want some perverts shoving their aberrant behavior in my face, calling it "normal", espousing it in the scholl systems, and demanding state recognition for it - all of which follows as a result of Roberts' unfortunate pro bono actions.
oops, didn't know. Posted from the corner. I'll have mod pull it.
You Zulu have been on FR for almost 5 years.
One would think you could discern the difference between the liberal medias true thoughts(NYT going after Robert's kids) and their attempts to divide and conquer(ala the LA Times article).
John Roberts did not volunteer for this case. He was the lead appellate attorney in a law firm with about 1000 lawyers. It was his job to help those 1000 lawyers with their appellate cases and this was only one of them. As an employee of a law firm he could not pick and chose which lawyers he could help nor the cases, he was bound to help them all - REGARDLESS of his personal ideology on those cases.
Source?
What makes you think they aren't going after his kids to make it appear like they are putting pressure on him?
Are you just sympathetic to the gays' agenda or would you have been okay with Roberts volunteering his time to help out pro-abortion activists as well?
Dane I hope you are right and my concerns are misplaced.
So now we must push Ann Coulter and Mark Levin to the lunny wacho fringe if we are to be good Republican huh?
Keep drinking the kool-aid.
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. 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? LOL and I'd bet yall wonder why conservatives are fleeing the GOPO as fast as they can.
However, it will be interesting to see the response of some of the really rabid whackos like the television evangelists.
Thats because ElRushbo lurks my posts.
We had a poster doing that here last night. Disgusting.
How very smart of him!
No, it means you THINK or IMAGINE or CLAIM Bush lied.
"John Roberts did not volunteer for this case. He was the lead appellate attorney in a law firm with about 1000 lawyers. It was his job to help those 1000 lawyers with their appellate cases and this was only one of them. As an employee of a law firm he could not pick and chose which lawyers he could help nor the cases, he was bound to help them all - REGARDLESS of his personal ideology on those cases."
I AGREE.
Judge Roberts was NOT the lead attorney on this case. He did 2000 hours of pro bono work in his carrer, as is required and assigned in major law firmsbut this case took but a few hours of his (non-billable) time.
There are certain bed rock causes that define conservatism, homosexual advocacy is not one of them, homosexual advocacy is a core liberal cause, anyone that is a homosexual advocate is a liberal.
YOU HAVEN'T THE FOGGIEST CLUE WHAT HIS VIEWS ON THAT TOPIC ARE! And yes, I'm yelling.
It's posts like yours referenced above that expose you of posting with an agenda. No serious person is going to claim to glean Roberts' view on "Consitutional Protection for sodomists" from the fact that he spent a few hours coaching another attorney on arguing a case before the SC.
1) Powerline Blog (Lawyers all)"Nor am I concerned if, as the Los Angeles Times reports, Roberts helped lawyers in his firm who were arguing before the Supreme Court, in a pro bono representation, that the Constitution protects people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation. Roberts was the lead attorney in his firm's appellate practice. I consider it natural that he would assist his colleagues in a matter like this. The legal position Roberts was helping his firm (and other attorneys involved in the case) advance regarding what the Constitution does and doesn't protect was wrong, I believe, as a matter of law. However, it was not immoral."
2) Senator Fred Thompson on Rush's show today.
3) http://www.supremecourtwatch.org/roberts.aspx This website is full of left wing hatred of the Conservative history of Judge Roberts - check it out.
Do you feel like you're hitting your head against a brick wall? LOL.
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.