Posted on 08/04/2005 7:37:34 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
Supreme Court nominee John Roberts donated his time to work behind the scenes for gay rights activists – and helped win a decision that’s been hailed as the "single most important positive ruling” for the gay rights movement.
Roberts was a lawyer specializing in appellate work in 1995 when he agreed to help represent the gay rights activists as part of his law firm’s pro bono work.
He did not argue the case before the Supreme Court, but he was instrumental in reviewing filings and preparing oral arguments, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times.
"Roberts’ work on behalf of gay rights activists, whose cause is anathema to many conservatives, appears to illustrate his allegiance to the credo of the legal profession: to zealously represent the interests of the client, whoever it might be,” the newspaper reports.
Walter A. Smith, then head of the pro bono department at Roberts’ law firm, Hogan & Hartson, asked for Roberts’ help on the case and he agreed immediately. "It’s illustrative of his open-mindedness, his fair-mindedness,” said Smith. "He did a brilliant job.”
The case before the Supreme Court, Romer vs. Evans, dealt with a voter-approved 1992 Colorado initiative that would have allowed employers and landlords to exclude gays from jobs and housing.
A 6-3 ruling striking down the initiative was handed down in May 1996.
Jean Dubofsky, lead lawyer for the gay rights activists, said Roberts’ work in the case was "absolutely crucial.”
And Suzanne B. Goldberg, a lawyer with Lambda, a legal services group for gays and lesbians, called the Supreme Court ruling the "single most important positive ruling in the history of the gay rights movement.”
Antonin Scalia – who was joined in his dissent by Clarence Thomas and William H. Rehnquist – said: "Coloradans are entitled to be hostile toward homosexual conduct.”
Roberts did not mention the case in his 67-page response to a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire that was released Tuesday.
The committee had asked for specific instances in which he had performed pro bono work.
Smith said the omission was most likely an oversight because Roberts wasn’t the chief litigator in the case.
In another pro bono case, Roberts failed to overturn a Washington, D.C., measure that took welfare benefits away from homeless people.
And all men can equally decide whether they want to get it on with some other man's but, and can thus be equally held accountable for their decision!
I think a property owner has the right to decide (based on his religious and moral) whom he will and will not rent too...employment may be a different case....If Robert's worked to benefit the power of government to once again, tramble on property and personal rights...then we have a right to be concerned...If he turns into another Souter, you can kiss the base of the GOP goodbye....
Believe me I understand that you statists have rendered private property rights a useless joke in the usa. Actually most of our rights under the bill of rights have been taken away by the state. I am happy for you that you enjoy being a serf of the state. You have a great future in front of you.
I think a property owner has the right to decide (based on his religious and moral) whom he will and will not rent too...employment may be a different case....If Robert's worked to benefit the power of government to once again, tramble on property and personal rights...then we have a right to be concerned...If he turns into another Souter, you can kiss the base of the GOP goodbye....
Anti-discrimination laws telling business whom they must hire, and telling landowners whom they must rent to are a huge curtailment of private property rights. One can argue about whether this curtailment is justified in the case of race. But sexual perversion? Come on.
All men are "created equal" in the eyes of the law. But to say that all private citiziens must treat everyone exactly the same, regardless of how they behave, is to completely take away our rights to property and freedom of association. That's not what the Declaration of Independence means, either.
.
Don't you find it odd that Hillary is often painted on this forum as a lesbian (which I believe based on stories told me by a Secret Service friend) in spite of a long marriage and a daughter but it's perceived as sacrilege to suggest in even the slightest fashion the same of Condi?
If you're an attorney you know that the decision to take on a particular client pro bono is a voluntary choice, not a forced choice. There may be and often is, in any particular firm, a requirement for attorneys to perform a certain number of hours pro bono work, but I don't know any firm that would force one of its attorneys to do pro bono work on behalf of a cause or client that the attorney is uncomfortable supporting. In that regard, pro bono work is a different creature than for-pay work.
She's been a busy woman getting where she is, and usually busy people to that degree find little time for relationships.
--------------------------------------
There are far too many successful women with families for that to fly. She was not always NSA or Sec of State. I have no knowledge one way or the other and I would venture that neither do you but nothing would surprise me.
Is homosexuality considered a protected class in Colorado? If so, is sexual orientation in general, whether gay or straight, also a protected class? Otherwise, it would be ironic if a gay property owner could discriminate against a straight renter, but not vice-versa.
Exactly right!
All you people who oppose this saintly conservative judge just because he worked for sodomites are just being used by the liberal cabal that controls everything that's printed in NEWSMAX. He must be a great conservative because our beloved and godly president, who is a real conservative and can do no wrong anywhere at anytime, nominated him and says he likes him more and more the more he knows about him. Are you calling our beloved and godly president a homo? Well, I, for one, will not stand for such slander!
Um have you read her bio?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/ricebio.html
My future will not be that long and fruitful. I am rather elderly, retired, married to a wonderful wife, a beautiful conservative daughter living in NYC, and have always associated with whom I wished. I live in a very red state too. Aren't I lucky?
I cannot EVER remember the government dictating otherwise to me. Yes, I do own rental property, am very very conservative, but do not wish to visit any of my renter's bedrooms.
Amen to that!
That's great, then. You can take all the gays that other landlords don't want. Capitalist competition, the free market in action. So why do you want to involve the government?
"...I don't know any firm that would force one of its attorneys to do pro bono work on behalf of a cause or client that the attorney is uncomfortable supporting."
Below is a summary of the case argued. Would you honestly support discriminating against gays in jobs and housing? I am very conservative and would work on this case in a NY minute. Now if it were gay marriage, that's a different matter. Are you against women's suffrage and blacks integration? I mean, conservatism HAS changed a bit (IMHO) over the last 100 years. Sorry sport, but you sound like a radical bigot to me, not a conservative.
"The case before the Supreme Court, Romer vs. Evans, dealt with a voter-approved 1992 Colorado initiative that would have allowed employers and landlords to exclude gays from jobs and housing."
She was a member of the boards of directors for the Chevron Corporation, the Charles Schwab Corporation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the University of Notre Dame, the International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan and the San Francisco Symphony Board of Governors. She was a Founding Board member of the Center for a New Generation, an educational support fund for schools in East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park, California and was Vice President of the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula . In addition, her past board service has encompassed such organizations as Transamerica Corporation, Hewlett Packard, the Carnegie Corporation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Rand Corporation, the National Council for Soviet and East European Studies, the Mid-Peninsula Urban Coalition and KQED, public broadcasting for San Francisco.
The ones in bold are well-known sodomite organizations. I think she's a muncher.
Gonna be a bit of a ramble as I sort out some of what I think I'm thinking.... This is an interesting question and has me thinking about my own philosophy. I think if I'm the business owner or home owner I should be able to hire or rent to whomever I choose. If I choose to be discriminatory I may miss out on a good thing, but if I don't want to rent to a family a family with children, - or in your example a Christian - well it's my property, I should be able to make that decision.
Maybe I'm coming around to the position that there should be no anti-descrimination laws should be on the books. OTOH, I think (hope)it's better now, but there was a time when based on race or gender you couldn't even get a chance without the anti-discrimation laws.
But it seems that like 'em or not, that's water under the bridge and the discrimination laws are on the books. IANAL, and there are too many in the 'nots' and 'prohibits' and 'struck downs' and 'don't allows' in the description of what this legal scenario implies for me to even want to try and keep track of it, but could Roberts position be that he was just supporting the precedent (case law or whatever the right term is) as it stands. (Is that the concept of stare decsis (sp?) I keep reading about on other blogs?) If that's the case then isn't wouldn't that be his job on the SCOTUS - not to make new law but to rule on laws constitutionality (and to lesser extent previous precedents)?
Or does this come down to we say we want a constitutionalist or originalist but we really want a conservative activist and just don't want to be so politically incorrect as to admit that?
I understand this doesn't address the issue of choosing ones pro bono cases. I'm working my way through other philosophical issues first.
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.