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."
It is my firm belief that George Bush is not enough of a conservative to nominate a judge who will allow Roe v. Wade to be overturned or gay marriage/civil unions to be banned.
We shall see, but my fellow social conservatives, I believe we've been had.
Gosh I hope you're wrong.
Bush could be saving the real conservative for when Rehnquist retires.
Bush could be saving the real conservative for when Rehnquist retires.
This disturbs me.
Nothing to this point has, but this does.
Because the Constitution clearly did not prohibit this law.
Me too
Is that the best the LA Times has on Roberts?
Questions.....
How old is his wife?
When were they married?
Is it a marriage of convenience?
When did they decide to adopt?
Sometimes a president can be too careful picking a judge.
Maybe Ann Coulter is right.
Everyone has said that Roberts is VERY Smart.....I'm thinking that he is SOOOOO smart that he did this work PURPOSELY so as to confuse the LEFTIES when the time came.......MAYBE?
I'm shocked you guys are just so quick to jump on the bandwagon to bash Roberts based on this article.
I thought that lawyers had to do a job and whether they always agree with something they are working or not is not relevant. You want a lawyer that can be a good team player and keep an open mind.
Lawyers and judges have different obligations and different jobs. Am I missing something here on the clear differences between Lawyers and Judges???
I think Roberts is going to be a fine judge. I also think the left is running scared and will say/do anything to get the right all worked up about Roberts. Just think about all the crap coming out right now about him (the adoption, bs comparision to kennedys etc)
You know, I wonder how much Cheney had to do with his pick.
Well, according to WND, we are just 2 days away from nuclear terror attacks all over the country anyway.
Makes pro bono work for homos a moot point.
He DONATED his time to this. That says a lot.
I think many FReepers owe Ms Anne Coulter an apology. She was dead right. When Conservatives rule the Presidency, Congress and State legislatures, they should appoint strict constructionist Conservatives to the Court without embarrassment, apology or defensiveness. Elections have consequences. But but appointing a moderate like Roberts over a Luttig or Brown, Bush ignored the results of the elections, which overwhelming endorsed Conservative values.
Read the article. If true, he agreed with the gay cause in this case and helped strike down a law enacted by the people to halt the gay agenda.
Replacing O'Connor with an O'Connor clone and replacing Rehnquist with a conservative doesn't change the balance of the court at all. We're stuck with possibly 25 more years of far left-wing judicial activism and the continued erosion of our respresentative Republican.
Bush and the Republicans can only get away with this if conservatives let them. Conservatives as a whole need to get a backbone or we might just as well give up.
If you were lawyer would you donate your time to helping gay activists? Why would any true originalist work to overturn a law that was perfectly Constitutional?
Okay, that applies to all the cases he has argued regard abortion, too?
We're back to having a completely blank slate of a nominee, then, based on your logic. That isn't good enough.
The difference in this case is that Roberts donated his time for FREE. I content one doesn't do that unless one believes in the cause.
If conservatives as a whole are too stupid to demand a known originalist, we get what we deserve and have no right to complain about what the courts do.
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.