Posted on 08/09/2005 4:06:48 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
On August 4 THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, seldom veering too far from the leftist agenda, conspicuously published a byline piece perhaps calculated more to inflame family-oriented conservatives than to enlighten public discourse about the John G. Roberts, Jr. Supreme Court nomination. Whatever the motivation - news or in-your-face? - the piece reveals that some years ago Judge Roberts, then a younger partner in the gigantic and long-established Washington, D. C. Hogan & Hartson Law Firm, gave extensive, brilliant and ultimately successful advice on a pro bono basis in what reasonably may be termed pro-homosexual litigation.
Whether outside attorneys or those cognizant of the case within the law firm, those attorneys contemporaneously familiar with Judge Roberts’ work chant a solid chorus of commendation for the competence of his input. He was not, suffice it to say, the lead attorney and did not argue the case before the Supreme Court, which resulted in a six - three victory.
There is no indication that Roberts the advocate necessarily shared the goal of the pro bono client. It is well established in law that an attorney need not. How else would an indicted criminal, an offensive spouse or millions of other miscreants and probable miscreants through the centuries of Anglo - Saxon jurisprudence find representation? Remember the vast and pervasive opprobrium and near-violence visited upon 34-year old future President John Adams for his 1770 criminal defense of British soldiers who had fired upon Colonialist civilian demonstrators, Adams having taken the case because no other prominent lawyer would.
One must consider the reality of life in a contemporary American “mega” law firm. In many - probably now most - there is much pro bono representation. (Some of us believe the choice of representations has gotten out of hand, to a liberal’s delight: cases furthering leftwing causes, not defenses of the impoverished. But that is beside the point.) In many such firms the younger partner or the associate has no realistic choice when asked - or just hinted at - by an influential partner that the less senior attorney’s particular expertise would be appreciated. Because Roberts qua attorney was so accomplished in appellate litigation, and also was helping the firm build an even more significant appellate practice, inevitably he was a fellow in demand and, to the extent he could balance work for paying clients, he responded.
Did he respond to a case with enthusiasm? Of course. Once an attorney commits the attorney revs up, builds enthusiasm, performs his best. That approach not only is the culture of the bar; more important, it is essential to a functioning bar, which, after all, in litigation exists to attempt to win, without which enthusiasm many citizens would lose their rights.
In other professions and trades there often is the participant’s dedication or enthusiasm once undertaking a cause. We see it all the time among physicians - the spirited treatment of a dying patient who in a moral sense deserves death. Many years ago I saw it in the stonemason foreman whom I interviewed as a witness in an unrelated government-contracts case. He breamed with enthusiasm about the highest-quality - “we are the best” - masonry he was supervising in building Manhattan’s largest hotel and wanted to show me all around “this greatest hotel I am building.” Only in an aside did he later comment that he thought there were too many big Manhattan hotels and “who would want to stay in one.”
In sum, substantiated pride in performance is a virtue. Enthusiasm often facilities performance. So the good Judge, then a mere lawyer, possibly enthusiastically, provided the highest competence in a Supreme Court case the powers-that-be in his law firm undertook as pro bono. Unlike, for example, promoting abortion, nobody died. The cause was to promote human rights (even though many of us disfavor anti-family applications of the cause).
So, at the least, it is highly doubtful that a Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. would be a threat to the family.
Marion Edwyn Harrison is President of, and Counsel to, the Free Congress Foundation.
Man talk about spin. You either have strong beliefs or you don't. If you have strong beliefs you don't go against those beliefs voluntarily and represent the other side. The "cause" in this case was to overrule the will of the voters in the state of Colorado with a non-existent "right" that has no constitutional basis. Instead the court legislated that "right" from the bench.
I hope all you people who say Roberts is okay are right. I really do. But I don't believe it. Time will tell, cause he will be confirmed, then we'll see.
I offer free advice to my clients and adversaries all the time .
VOTE CONSERVATIVE !!!
" I hope you people who say Roberts is OK are right ."
It's Scary , and you're right about strong bliefs , I can't find myself defending "homosexuals rights" in any circumstance . I promote the one man , one woman concept and could never defend any other position . Scary !!!
Whew, just GW Bush's dealings with the UN shows you are all wet, do you think the oil for food scam would have been brought out under Gore/Kerry, that Kyoto would be ditiched, that the international court nixed, or Bolton appointed.
But what the hey you have your preconceived notions, despite the facts showing otherwise.
I have to agree that a few hours of pro bono work is no sign of whether Roberts is a closet Souter.
As an aside, though, I would mention that it's distinctly unlikely that the Supreme Court is going to throw out gay marriage. The definition of marriage has always been a state issue, and it's not likely to change now, no matter who's on the Court.
I don't know for a fact whether Roberts himself, in preparation for any of the numerous cases he argued before the USSC, assembled his own cast for a mock trial, but if he did (and one would think any case going before the USSC counts as important enough to go to the trouble), he would certainly have asked partners whose legal views reflect those of, say, Ginsburg, Breyer, etc. to fill in and play their parts to the best of their ability.
As the forum's resident moderate, I endorse Judge Roberts.
As Ann Coulter has pointed out, a lawyer doesn't need to accept pro bono work if he or she doesn't want to do it. the fact that Roberts was willing to put any pro bono hours toward the issue might be an indicator that he isn't as liberal as some of us would like.
I don't know. My guess is there are already four votes on the court to strike down male-female marriage as "discriminatory": Souter, Stevens, Breyer, and Ginzburg. Add in that Kennedy has now twice waxed poetic about how liberating being gay and/or committing sodomy is (Romer & Lawrence), and I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Supreme Court does to the nation what Margaret Marshall did to Massachusetts, or the Canadian high court did to Canada.
This article, like so many others, misses the point. I don't care if the litigation was pro or anti homosexual. I care if it was pro or anti-constitution. If the constitution had a clause requiring special rights for homosexuals, the Courts should enforce it. It does not. So the courts, and originalists everywhere, should refuse to participate in the continued desecration of the constitution by making up new rights and putting them in the constitution by judicial fiat.
For what it's worth, I have worked at four law firms, including a very large one. The idea that a partner, even a very junior partner, would effectively be required, at peril of career advancement, to work on a pro bono case to which he had moral or religious objections is not at all consistent with what I (or friends of mine at other firms) have observed. (I also think the John Adams analogy is misplaced. The gay rights crowd has thousands of competent lawyers working for them. They didn't need John Roberts.)
Sadly, I think you are closer to the truth than anyone else commenting on this issue.
I will withhold any judgement on the efficacy of the Oil-For-Food investigation until I see who is eventually punished and to what extent. I was not happy to see Volker running the investigation.
There was no way for the guilty, in this case, to avoid some kind of investigation. Clinton, or those who enabled the SOB, was very good at controlling and limiting the damage of investigations into his numerous misdeeds.
Volker was originally appointed as Fed Chairman by Carter and was appoitnted by kofi annan, to do the official "UN" investigation.
Minnesota Senator, Norm Coleman, is overseeing the official US ivestigation, and he ain't a UN "stooge".
Thomas had plenty of liberal enemies (including 48 "no" votes in the Senate.) However, Scalia had broad support from both parties. Scalia flew through the Senate without a peep from liberals.
Freudian slip?
AnnAdoringFan - Member since 2/11/05
Which of the two investigations has "teeth" and has been receiving media coverage?
When just one of the numerous investigations against the left/liberal establishment, results in "just" punishment of the perpetrators, I may take a more optimistic view of current investigations. So far, the score is far too many, to zero.
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.