Posted on 08/05/2005 11:45:39 PM PDT by SmithL
"He could easily have said no to the request."
Which proves you've never worked at a law firm.
In a group of attorneys, the firm's policies are set, the individual lawyers don't have an up or down vote - the decisions are made in the board room - not the individual lawyer's offices.
From Associated Press:
Walter A. Smith Jr., the partner at Hogan and Hartson who ran the firm's pro bono program, said that Roberts took part in the firm's initial meeting to consider accepting the case and that his participation, as with all of the firm's pro bono cases, was voluntary. "Anyone who didn't want to work on a case for whatever matter, they didn't have to," Smith said. "He was in on the takeoff and he was in on the landing and was helpful in both." From a lawyer's point of view, Smith said, the Colorado case was more about equal protection than about gay rights. He said the crucial issue for Roberts—and eventually for the Supreme Court—was whether the Colorado initiative took away ordinary rights and legal protections from a disadvantaged group, whether a sexual, racial, or social minority. "From a lawyer's point of view, it presented an equal protection question," Smith said. "Does such a law violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution?"
" Judge John G. Roberts Jr. helped a group of homosexual rights activists win a seminal victory 10 years ago "
What does SEMINAL victory mean ?
seminal: Highly influential in an original way; constituting or providing a basis for further development: a seminal idea in the creation of a new theory.
"'Anyone who didn't want to work on a case for whatever matter, they didn't have to,' Smith said."
I've never heard of such a thing in a law office.
I have a cautious optimism about Roberts, and am not looking for a cup of Kool Aid to drink to drug my concerns about him. This just seems a reasonable construction, possibly even a positively encouraging one. He's the one they picked to represent opposition to this.
bonoe = bono
This judge shall continue the policy of inflicting harm on The Republic. Furthermore, he shall inflict harm in good conscience and with the sincere belief he that he is doing well.
So Roberts is being condemned by some at FR for trying to set up roadblocks to the lib case? It could be said that he argued against the case within the confines of the firm.
A thought just occurred to me - if this issue were really defining Roberts, all the Dems/liberals would be welcoming him with open arms. Are they?
See my #46 for a similar point.
My impression is that the special interests are all vociferously dead-set against him, some of The Usual Suspects (Schumer, etc.) are trying to diss him... but a lot of them are either silent or positive. He evidently put together an absolutely sterling rep, undeniable by anyone. This is probably the context for understanding the NYT's investigation into the adoption of their kids -- "We've got to find SOMEthing, ANYthing!!!"
Dan
When you are a more senior attorney in a firm, and another attorney asks you for professional advice on an issue, you give it. He was an appellate expert, and anyone in the Firm who had a case going before the Supreme Court would have been negligent in not seeking out his advice. And it would have been unprofessional of him not to have given it.
Could he have said no? Yeah, probably. But it would have been horribly unprofessional for him to do so, and I've never seen anything like that. And frankly, I'd question the intellectual firepower of a guy who refused to get involved in playing a role as a judge in a moot court hearing.
You may be right. A lot of social conservatives apparently don't care whether he follows the Constitution, or whether his legal analysis is based on originalist/textualist principles. All they care about is the result in each case -- whether Christian conservative values prevail.
I don't believe that a justice should be results oriented, or that he should advance a particular social agenda. If some "Christian Conservatives" are right in thinking that social conservative results are less important to him than whether his interpretation of the Constitution is legally accurate, that's just another reason for me to support him. Conservative judicial activists who care only about politically-desirable results when discussing judges are only marginally better than the liberal activists who gave us Roe.
Yup. What's disturbing about this is that he used his considerable talents to volunteer help for homosexual activists to do an end run around the democratic process and impose their agenda on an unwilling electorate. I hope he's indeed an advocate of judicial restraint, but I've got to question the principles of any conservative who voluntarily aids those who would give homosexual conduct civil rights protection through judicial decree.
You're just stooping to the liberals' level. Leave Roberts' kids out of it.
It IS a big deal...........what he did was helped invalidate my vote, and the votes of millions of other conservative voters by convincing SCOTUS to issue an unconstitutional ruling .
I've never heard of such a thing in a law office.
The written policy of a firm is not necessarily the same as the unwritten but -- for all practical purposes -- binding "policy." I doubt they would have forced a buy-out of his partnership if he refused, but that's not the only consideration. Didn't he argue numerous cases before the USSC? Isn't it likely he had asked partners of liberal views to act the roles of Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer? Maybe he just owed that kind of favor.
It would be interesting to parse Roberts' reasoning on supporting eminent domain and the forcible seizure of land by government. He has written arguments before, although I have not read them, that support the government's right to do this.
It's an interesting sidenote that Pres. Bush and his business partners could never have gotten the stadium built for the Rangers, a team they owned, if it were not for eminent domain, and the right of government to seize property that it wanted.
That does not seem like something for which an "economic conservative" could argue. There might have to be a careful difference spelled out between a stadium and an emergency access road, for example. (Or, whether the people who will profit from it also contribute to your political campaign!)
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.