>>>>Roberts did nothing that any normal law firm partner would not also do - conservative or otherwise.
Baloney! Not only did Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas denounce the final SC decision (see below), Scalia also said he would not have assisted in working to see Colorado Amendment 2 overturned. Many lawyers throughout the country came to the same conclusions that Scalia did.
The case with Romer V Evans is simple. It was a SC decision of historical dimensions. It overruled the will of Colorado voters. While John Roberts involvemnt was limited, he nonetheless was involved in a case that conservatives view as a matter of human morality. Roberts said just today, he didn't see his involvement in Romer v Evans as an immoral act. You agree with Judge Roberts. I agree with Justices Scalia and Thomas.
JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE THOMAS join, dissenting.
The Court has mistaken a Kulturkampf for a fit of spite. The constitutional amendment before us here is not the manifestation of a "`bare . . . desire to harm'" homosexuals, ante, at 13, but is rather a modest attempt by seemingly tolerant Coloradans to preserve traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politically powerful minority to revise those mores through use of the laws. That objective, and the means chosen to achieve it, are not only unimpeachable under any constitutional doctrine hitherto pronounced (hence the opinion's heavy reliance upon principles of righteousness rather than judicial holdings); they have been specifically approved by the Congress of the United States and by this Court.
In holding that homosexuality cannot be singled out for disfavorable treatment, the Court contradicts a decision, unchallenged here, pronounced only 10 years ago, see Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), and places the prestige of this institution behind the proposition that opposition to homosexuality is as reprehensible as racial or religious bias. Whether it is or not is precisely the cultural debate that gave rise to the Colorado constitutional amendment (and to the preferential laws against which the amendment was directed). Since the Constitution of the United States says nothing about [ ROMER v. EVANS, ___ U.S. ___ (1996) , 2] this subject, it is left to be resolved by normal democratic means, including the democratic adoption of provisions in state constitutions. This Court has no business imposing upon all Americans the resolution favored by the elite class from which the Members of this institution are selected, pronouncing that "animosity" toward homosexuality, ante, at 13, is evil. I vigorously dissent.
The rest of your diatribe is nothing more then the rants of a juvenile and are duly noted.
Honestly, who would want this job? He has small kids and his rulings can make or break their future. I suppose his purpose is great. But it is clean we need term limits on Senate!
"Scalia also said he would not have assisted in working to see Colorado Amendment 2 overturned."
Really, I hadn't heard that. Do you have a cite?
In fact, he played JUSTICE SCALIA at the moot court hearing. He didn't play Justice Souter.
"Duly Noted" -- Are you the "Judge Judy" of this thread?