Skip to comments.Public Advocate Distressed About LA Times Report on Roberts (Calls to Clarify or Withdraw)
Posted on 08/05/2005 3:41:17 PM PDT by gopwinsin04
Eugene Delgaudio, president of Public Advocate of the United States, a Northern Virgina family based organization, has issued the following statement.
The statement follows the Los Angeles Times report that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts provided legal support to the homosexual lobby in a Colorado case that reached the United States Supreme Court in 1996.
'I was concerned and distressed to read the LA Times report that claims Judge Roberts volunteered to give legal advise to homosexual activists in Romer v. Evans, which overturned a democratic vote of the citizens of Colorado in an appaling act of judicial activism.'
'We hope against hope that his report is false, and if it is, we call on Judge Roberts to correct the record immediately. If the report is true, and Judge Roberts did provide advise on how to overturn this pro-family measure overhwelmingly supported by the people of Colorado, then Public Advocate calls on President Bush to withdraw his nomination of John Roberts immediately.'
Public Advocate has been fighting for the American family for 25 years.
(Excerpt) Read more at earnedmedia.org ...
It's a great strategy.
"...Romer v. Evans, which overturned a democratic vote of the citizens of Colorado in an appaling act of judicial activism."
I don't know....sounds like evidence that Coulter hit the target on this one....as usual.
This was a landmark case in US history. Colorado amendment 2 which we voted on in 1992, was a great moral victory against special rights. In this case, special rights for homosexuals. The Colorado SC and the USSC both ruled against the Constitutionality of the law and against the will of the Colorado voters. Another case of liberal activism. John Roberts placed himself in the middle of this case. He should have sat this one out.
It's real easy for armchair quarterbacks to insist that he quit rather than represent a client he might not agree with, but that would require every lawyer to quit 100% of the time.
We are a Republic, NOT a mobocracy. I say this as one who remembers some of the more asinine "ballot initiatives" that were passed while I was a resident of Florida for a "super train" between Orlando and Miami, "smaller class sizes," and untold dollars for questionable projects.
> The left can't defeat his confirmation, so they're trying
> everything to get the social conservatives to have doubts.
Wait 'til Schummer comes out and endorses Roberts :-)
>>>>It's real easy for armchair quarterbacks ...
I happen to believe America is in the middle of a culture war against the forces of liberalism. And as an American I have every right to speak out against what I believe was a wrongheaded move by John Roberts.
Your opposition was a given before it was announced.
""...Romer v. Evans, which overturned a democratic vote of the citizens of Colorado in an appaling act of judicial activism.""
Sounds to me like he was asked to do work on behalf of his firm regarding the law and he did it. Frankly, whether it is a gay agenda, or any agenda, if it is law then it is law.
I was talking about a decision by Colorado voters that isn't governed by the Constitution. I do not support special rights for anyone.
OTOH. The 2ND amendment is part of our Bill of Rights and is in my opinion, is the amendment which makes all our other rights possible.
And for your information, Colorado Amendment 2 wasn't an "asinine" ballot initiatives. Do your homework.
Do you think he would have fought a case promoting special rights for pedophiles because that became the in thing to do? If so, what does that tell us about his principles?
This is what Fred Thompson said in response to a question from Rush today, on his show, about the LA Times piece. Rush's concern was that Judge Roberts may have been "assisting in overturning a duly passed ballot initiative by the people of Colorado." Thompson gave a good response that covered both aspects.
THOMPSON: Yeah, and it's kind of obvious. You know, as a lawyer, I was specially interested in this little story because it shows Judge Roberts as a lawyer, and I've been there, and I know what the deal is and how it works, and the story is basically this -- especially these large law firms. His law firm I think had over a thousand people in the firm. They have these pro bono divisions, pro bono committees, and these committees decide, for whatever reason, what pro bono cases they take over a period of years. It would be hundreds and hundreds of cases, and they go around to the various specialties in their firm to ask for assistance in appropriate areas that come up, and you're expected to do that as a lawyer, and Judge Roberts the entire time he was there at the firm never refused for ideological reasons or any other reason to assist and give advice as to the best way to proceed with regard to a particular legal situation. If it was a plausible legal case and it was ethical, he was playing his role as a lawyer. He handled many pro bono cases, he handled a lot of cases in his practice for wealthy people, and he handled pro bono cases for indigent people. He was a lawyer's lawyer, and he was on a lot of different sides of a lot of different issues. You know, kind of the pinnacle that most lawyers really aspire to. And I think the point here is that, you know, we got a system here where lawyers play their role, judges and juries play their role. And this is no indication of a judicial philosophy. This is an indication of a lawyer philosophy that has a long and illustrious history starting with John Adams who defended the Redcoats at the Boston Massacre -- and Abe Lincoln, you know, was not adverse to representing the railroads against the little guy on occasion. It's a lawyer's role not to be the judge, but to be an advocate for a case that's plausible if it comes into his office, and that's the role that he was playing. But it has nothing to do one way or the other with judicial philosophy.
RUSH: I'm glad you say that, because the one thing about it that concerned me was not his role on the behalf of gay activists. He appeared to be, based on the way the story was written, he was assisting in overturning a duly passed ballot initiative by the people of Colorado.
THOMPSON: Well, you could say that Judge Roberts' secretary assisted overturning that case. I mean, you've got a lot of lawyers doing a lot of things. Judge Roberts did a little bit. You know, unapologetically, again, not trying to beg off on that basis but the fact is he was a very, very peripheral player and to the extent that you want to say that, you know, 1% makes up the whole and the whole caused a judicial decision, I guess you can say that but it's really stretching the point.
Some folks are taking this seriously.
It's good to see.
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.