Posted on 08/04/2005 2:02:37 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky
Roberts donated time to 'gay rights' activists
Homosexuals won anti-bias ruling with help of high-court nominee
Posted: August 4, 2005
2:32 p.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
John Roberts, President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court, donated his time to homosexual activists, helping them win a landmark anti-bias ruling from the high court in 1996.
According to a report in the Los Angeles Times, Roberts helped represent "gay rights" activists as part of his law firm's pro bono work. While the nominee did not actually argue the case before the high court, several lawyers familiar with the case say he was instrumental in reviewing filings and preparing oral arguments.
The Supreme Court ruling was decided on a 6-3 vote, with Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissenting. Bush has repeatedly said he would nominate Supreme Court justices in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. The ruling in Romer v. Evans struck down a voter-approved 1992 Colorado initiative that nullified "gay rights" measures in the state.
The Times points out Roberts has stressed that a client's views are not necessarily shared by the lawyer who argues on his or her behalf, so the nominee could claim he did not agree with the homosexual activists he helped.
Walter A. Smith Jr., then head of the pro bono department at Hogan & Hartson, told the paper Roberts didn't hesitate to take the case: "He said, 'Let's do it.' And it's illustrative of his open-mindedness, his fair-mindedness. He did a brilliant job."
Roberts did not mention the Romer case in a 67-page response to a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire released this week.
"John probably didn't recall [the case] because he didn't play as large a role in it as he did in others," Smith told the Times yesterday. "I'm sure John has a record somewhere of every case he ever argued, and Romer he did not argue. So he probably would have remembered it less."
Jean Dubofsky was the lead lawyer for the homosexual activists and a former Colorado Supreme Court justice.
"Everybody said Roberts was one of the people I should talk to," Dubofsky is quoted as saying. "He has a better idea on how to make an effective argument to a court that is pretty conservative and hasn't been very receptive to gay rights."
She said he gave her advice in two areas that were "absolutely crucial."
"He said you have to be able to count and know where your votes are coming from. And the other was that you absolutely have to be on top of why and where and how the state court had ruled in this case," Dubofsky said.
Dubofsky says in practicing for the high-court arguments, Roberts played a Scalia-type justice, peppering her with tough questions.
"John Roberts … was just terrifically helpful in meeting with me and spending some time on the issue," she told the Times. "He seemed to be very fair-minded and very astute."
In the Romer dissent, Scalia, joined by Rehnquist and Thomas, said, "Coloradans are entitled to be hostile toward homosexual conduct." Scalia added that the majority opinion had "no foundation in American constitutional law, and barely pretends to."
John and Jane Roberts
Celebrity Marriages
Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts has been married to Jane Sullivan since 1996. Here is more information about the couple and their family.
Birthdates:
John G Roberts, Jr. was born on January 27, 1955, in Buffalo, New York. He grew up in Long Beach, Indiana.
Jane Marie Sullivan was born c. 1955.
Ages at Wedding:
Both John and Jane were 41 when they married.
Wedding:
John and Jane were married on July 27, 1996 at St. Patrick's Roman Catholic Church in Washington, D.C. The ceremony was performed by Msgr. Peter Joseph Vaghi.
One of their groomsmen was Michael Luttig.
Children:
John and Jane have two adopted children, a son and a daughter, Jack, born c.2001 and Josie, born c.2000.
Education:
John attended Harvard University. He received his B.A. degree in 1976 and his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1979.
Jane received her A.B. degree in 1976 from the College of the Holy Cross. She received a Master's degree in education from Melbourne University in 1977 and her M.S. from Brown University in 1981. She graduated from Georgetown University Law Center, J.D. in 1984.
Occupations:
John was a law clerk for Judge Henry J. Friendly, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, from 1979-1980. Then he was a law clerk for Associate Justice William H. Rehnquist from 1980-81. In 1981, he was the special assistant to U.S. Attorney William French Smith. From 1982-1986, he was an associate counsel to President Reagan. From 1986 to 1989, John as a member of Hogan & Hartson's Appellate Practice Group.
He was the principal deputy solicitor general from 1989-1993. John is currently on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
In 1982, Jane litigated before Australian courts. Jane is currently a partner and lawyer for Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman. She is also a member of the Supreme Court bar.
Religion:
Both John and Jane are catholics and attend Little Flower Catholic Church in Bethesda, Maryland.
Residence:
John and Jane live in Chevy Chase, Maryland in a two-story, white brick colonial home. The couple also holds a one-eighth interest in a cottage in Knocklong, Limerick, Ireland.
Trivia:
John enjoys vanilla chocolate chip ice cream.
Jane was involved as a volunteer with Feminists for Life from 1995 to 1999. She is also a member of the board of governors of the John Carroll Society.
Can we get a few more postings about this subject?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1456851/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1456802/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1456794/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1456673/posts
Romer was not Lawrence or Goodrich, so I think we have to look at the specifics of the issue in this case and not conclude necessarily that Roberts supports imposition of the full gay activist agenda by judges. On the other hand, let's hope that this was at most a momentary lapse, that he is still a true conservative, and that this will just help him get approved.
Dear God, thank you for posting this up. The fact that so many so called "conservative" and "pro-life" outfits have jumped on the Roberts bandwagon before we even know anything about him, declaring him not to be another Souter, is shameful. But then again, considering the state of the conservative and pro-life movements, not shocking at all. Thank you very much again.
Dear God, thank you for posting this up. The fact that so many so called "conservative" and "pro-life" outfits have jumped on the BASH Roberts bandwagon before we even know anything about him OR TO WHAT EXTENT HE WAS TRULY INVOLVED WITH THIS CASE, declaring him not to be another Souter, is shameful. But then again, considering the state of the conservative and pro-life movements, not shocking at all ,ESPECIALLY SINCE SO MANY OF US HERE ON FR ARE OBVIOUSLY EASILY LED BY A STORY PUT OUT BY THE MSM WITHOUT ANY CREDIBLE RESEARCH. Thank you very much again FOR LETTING ALL OF US CHICKEN LITTLES VENT
Romer is the case that the federal judge used as precedent to overturn Nebraska's Marriage Amendment. It is a horrible case.
Because the Constitution clearly did not prohibit this law.
-----
Roberts has stated he supports "settled law" -- meaning he would not be a justice in favor of turning over establish law. Was this initiative not already "settled law"?
But let's not forget he was not deciding this issue. He provided some advice, and after reading it, it sounded more like political advice, rather than legal advice, for what that might be worth.
Independent of Roberts, it is still sick that the will of the voters was again squashed by a liberal-activist SCOTUS.
Well said. I mean, consider the source: THE L.A. TIMES. You know darn well they stretched what little facts they had to the breaking point to spin this as hard as they could to get this reaction from the right. I guess their influence is not totally gone. *sigh*
"Verify, because we cannot trust."
The Constitution did not clearly prohibit what law? IIRC this was some sort of blanket anti-"gay rights" law that attempted to neutralize all existing and FUTURE laws relating to this rather wide topic. I think a pretty solid argument can be made that the Constitution prohibits laws that curb citizens' and their state legislators' right to pass new laws.
I'm with you. His boss said I need help and he responded in the affirmative. I had to do something I did not want to do this week myself. Not gay rights, but just as ugly.
I'm beginning to fell like a deacon of a church that's in a town overrun by prostitution and gambling. My church has gone looking long and hard for a dynamic young minister who will preach the Lord's word and try to stop the gambling and prostitution. We've just interviewed a really promising young man. Then the cops raid the worst bordello/casino in town and they catch our young minister candidate naked, dead drunk, and with his pants' pockets stuffed with chips.
Not recall one of the most significant pro bono legal victories he was involved in??? When pigs sprout wings and fly. Why wasn't his name on the briefs or any of the other papers in the case?
Why would Bush be so stupid or naive to "save for a real conservative" by appointing a nominee like John Roberts (at best an Anthony Kennedy swing vote clone or at worst a David Souter-type liberal) when he could have nominated a real true conservative that we don't have to guess at his judicial philosophy? Since John Roberts has been nominated he has ...
1) Confirmed with Chuckie Schumer that he will not be a judicial activist - But using liberal left-wing Dems definition of judicial activism to imply Scalia or Thomas type of justice
2) Has reiterated his support for "settled law" re. Roe vs Wade? Apparently conservative findings can be overturned at any time, but liberal activist rulings are considered sacrosanct, never to be re-examined.
3) Has tried to dissasociate from any formal ties or connection with the Federalist Society, an open forum for ANY lawyers to discuss issues or opinions free from the shrill screams of the lunatic lefties.
4) Has been a major factor in putting together a case to overturn a Colorado law to allow CO employers and landlords to exclude gays??? If Roberts had any qualms or moral dilemmas about advancing the gay rights agenda, he did not need to have taken this case PRO BONO as a matter of fact.
Bottom line is, only Coulter and Pat Buchanan, maybe 1 or 2 others are raising legitimate concerns about Roberts and his (lack) of commitment to cultural & pro-American issues. Methinks that Bush has nominated a stealth moderate-liberal for the SCOTUS appointee. What a tragic betrayal!
In another few years, I'm going to be a medical resident. If my boss comes to me and says, "I need help with this abortion,
" guess what I'm going to tell him?
I'm sick and tired of liberals and immoral people acting like they own society - to the point that I'm downright rude about it these days.
"I'm shocked you guys are just so quick to jump on the bandwagon to bash Roberts based on this article."
I'm not shocked. This bashing of conservatives
happens all the time by the conservater-than-thou
folks on FR. It has been said that the only army
in the world who kills its wounded is the church.
Seems to me that there's two groups who kill their
wounded. And not only on FR. Out on the street, too.
Oh puh-leease! If you want to be a mindless follower then you can. The rest of us think we should expect our elected representatives to fulfill their promises. That means a "Scalia or Thomas" promise means a Scalia or Thomas type nominee.
So you agreed with the liberals on Romer and disagreed with conservatives Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist?
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.