Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/4/2005 5:42:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 5:42:41 PM EDT by The_Macallan]

Roberts Donated Help to Gay Rights Case

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. worked behind the scenes for gay rights activists, and his legal expertise helped them persuade the Supreme Court to issue a landmark 1996 ruling protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation.

Then a lawyer specializing in appellate work, the conservative Roberts helped represent the gay rights activists as part of his law firm's pro bono work. He did not write the legal briefs or argue the case before the high court, but he was instrumental in reviewing filings and preparing oral arguments, according to several lawyers intimately involved in the case.

Gay rights activists at the time described the court's 6-3 ruling as the movement's most important legal victory. The dissenting justices were those to whom Roberts is frequently likened for their conservative ideology: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist,
Antonin Scalia and
Clarence Thomas.

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 lawyer who asked for Roberts' help on the case, Walter A. Smith Jr., then head of the pro bono department at Hogan & Hartson, said Roberts didn't hesitate. "He said, 'Let's do it.' And it's illustrative of his open-mindedness, his fair-mindedness. He did a brilliant job."
.
.
.
The case was argued before the Supreme Court in October 1995, and the ruling was handed down the following May. Suzanne B. Goldberg, a staff lawyer for New York-based Lambda, a legal services group for gays and lesbians, called it the "single most important positive ruling in the history of the gay rights movement."

In the blistering 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."

The case was one of several Roberts worked on pro bono at Hogan & Hartson, a prominent Washington law firm that expects partners to volunteer time in community service.



Why would he volunteer to do THIS particular work if he didn't believe in the merits of the case?


I'm getting a bad feeling about this...
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 5:47:17 PM EDT
I have had a bad feeling about it.

Why aren't the libs up in arms about him?

I can only imagine that they don't think of him as a threat?

BigDozer66
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 5:49:24 PM EDT
This is EXACTLY the problem that comes with a submarine appointee.

Repubs OWN the senate, he should put up Bork, or an equivalent.

Then full-court press for an up or down vote. Look at the firestorm Thomas walekd through when we had nowhere near the votes we have now.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 6:16:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CITADELGRAD87:
Repubs OWN the senate, he should put up Bork, or an equivalent.



Bork believes that the Second Amendment refers to a collective right, not an individual one. Don't assume that he would have been a friend to the RKBA if he was on the court.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 6:18:26 PM EDT
Rolling Stone totally hates him and thinks he will be base all decisions on his Christian fundamentalism.

I think he will be slightly right of center and very pragmatic.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 6:26:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Hipster:

Originally Posted By CITADELGRAD87:
Repubs OWN the senate, he should put up Bork, or an equivalent.



Bork believes that the Second Amendment refers to a collective right, not an individual one. Don't assume that he would have been a friend to the RKBA if he was on the court.



Several things, first is that I meant "Bork" as in the all powerful antichrist of right wingers, figuratively, as in stop kissing ass with "moderates."

Second, I have read Bork's opinions and am familiar with his record.

Third, the liklihood of a direct interpretation of the second amendment taking place is extremely low.

The recent eminent domain decision scares me/potentially affects me a lot more than Miller v United States.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 6:28:17 PM EDT
It's all part of the plan to scuttle his nomination: If you can't come up with a valid excuse for Borking him, you dig up a case that rubs conservatives the wrong way - Get them to do your Borking for you.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 6:31:22 PM EDT
This is one of the big reasons I voted for Bush: to get more conservatives on the SC.

I hope they don't blow it.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 6:34:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Skibane:
It's all part of the plan to scuttle his nomination: If you can't come up with a valid excuse for Borking him, you dig up a case that rubs conservatives the wrong way - Get them to do your Borking for you.



+1

This is similar to the election when the libs made a big deal out of Cheney's daughter being a lesbian. Liberals think that all conservatives are homophobic so they toss in a gay connection but most conservatives don't care.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 6:35:11 PM EDT
The best nominees are those attacked and villified so much by the DC liberal establishment that they can never be "turned" later by the left. This is why Thomas has been such a good judge.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 6:47:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Hipster:

Originally Posted By Skibane:
It's all part of the plan to scuttle his nomination: If you can't come up with a valid excuse for Borking him, you dig up a case that rubs conservatives the wrong way - Get them to do your Borking for you.

+1

This is similar to the election when the libs made a big deal out of Cheney's daughter being a lesbian. Liberals think that all conservatives are homophobic so they toss in a gay connection but most conservatives don't care.


This is not a tactic being used by the left - it's a FACT that Roberts volunteered to support this absurd case.

That this pro bono case is being "used" by the left or not is irrelevant.

There should BE no case like this in Robert's past if he's something other than a Souter-like submarine nominee.


That Roberts would support such a case as this is the problem, not that it's being "dug up" for ulterior motives.

Link Posted: 8/4/2005 6:54:21 PM EDT
The fact that he would adopt kids from Latin America rather than kids from the US concerns me. He's starting to sound like the perfect candidate for our first mexican President, Jorge Bush.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 6:55:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 6:56:03 PM EDT by The_Macallan]

Originally Posted By TacticalMan:
The fact that he would adopt kids from Latin America rather than kids from the US concerns me. He's starting to sound like the perfect candidate for our first mexican President, Jorge Bush.

Yep.

Sounds like a real "do-gooder" liberal-type in stealth clothes.

Link Posted: 8/4/2005 7:00:36 PM EDT
I'm pissed about Eminent Domain, Taxation, and the strict following of the Bill of Rights.

Where does this monkey stand on those issues.


I could care less about Abortion - though it ain't in the Amends....
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 7:37:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

That this pro bono case is being "used" by the left or not is irrelevant.



It is only "irrelevant" if it doesn't affect your opinion of the man - which is precisely why you are hearing about it now.


Look! Chuck Schumer is shooting a gun, AND OBVIOUSLY ENJOYING IT! He must be a 'submarine' for the NRA!
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 7:38:23 PM EDT
Guys don't fall for the media trick. His firm did lots of pro bono work at that time. Roberts only spent 2 or 3 hours behind the scenes on it. The media is trying to get the right not to support him.

The libs are up in arms. They are going after his sealed adoption papers for his kids. They the lib. media are truly devils and can't stand to let a conservative on the bench.

Roberts is going to be a good choice.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 7:38:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TacticalMan:
The fact that he would adopt kids from Latin America rather than kids from the US concerns me. He's starting to sound like the perfect candidate for our first mexican President, Jorge Bush.



Show me where there is a glut of adoptable children in the US. Unless it is a crack-addicted, HIV positive, FES baby.

Why do you think Angelina Jolie adopts foreign-born babies? And why so many adopt Chinese girl babies? Adoption is expensive. And adopting a domestic baby is very pricey...the biological mothers have it on easy street and the lawyers make out like bandits.

Link Posted: 8/4/2005 7:51:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Skibane:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
That this pro bono case is being "used" by the left or not is irrelevant.

It is only "irrelevant" if it doesn't affect your opinion of the man - which is precisely why you are hearing about it now.


So if he had volunteered his time pro bono to work on a case the behalf of VPC and the Brady Campaign - you'd think it shouldn't change our opinion of him or his views on the RKBA?

Link Posted: 8/4/2005 7:52:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BRONZ:
Guys don't fall for the media trick. His firm did lots of pro bono work at that time. Roberts only spent 2 or 3 hours behind the scenes on it.

Why would he volunteer ANY of his time to work on such a case if he didn't think it had strong merit???

Link Posted: 8/4/2005 7:55:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By Skibane:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
That this pro bono case is being "used" by the left or not is irrelevant.

It is only "irrelevant" if it doesn't affect your opinion of the man - which is precisely why you are hearing about it now.


So if he had volunteered his time pro bono to work on a case the behalf of VPC and the Brady Campaign - you'd think it shouldn't change our opinion of him or his views on the RKBA?




Depends on the case. Would you hire a gun-grabber lawyer to dismiss a traffic ticket who had a 99% overturning success?

Law firms frequently take on pro bono case work. That this was in a firm makes it eve less significant.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 7:56:18 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 8:03:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By BRONZ:
Guys don't fall for the media trick. His firm did lots of pro bono work at that time. Roberts only spent 2 or 3 hours behind the scenes on it.

Why would he volunteer ANY of his time to work on such a case if he didn't think it had strong merit???




Maybe the senior partners told him to? I dunno, when you work for an employer sometimes you gotta do stuff you don't like, but it's your job so you do it well. *shrug* I don't know I'm just saying.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 8:04:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
So if he had volunteered his time pro bono to work on a case the behalf of VPC and the Brady Campaign - you'd think it shouldn't change our opinion of him or his views on the RKBA?



Not if he had also worked on thousands of cases on behalf of the NRA - which judging by his record, is an accurate analogy.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 8:14:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 8:17:10 PM EDT by The_Macallan]

Originally Posted By Keith_J:
Would you hire a gun-grabber lawyer to dismiss a traffic ticket who had a 99% overturning success?


Would a gun-grabber lawyer work pro bono on behalf of a gunowner who owned an "illegal" handgun for protection?

No of course not. Why? because such a lawyer would never believe in or support the merits of the case.

Roberts worked on behalf of gay groups in this 1996 case of "Romer v. Evans" whereby the Court absurdly struck down a majority-approved referendum amending the Colorado state constitution that would have prohibited establishing special rights or privileges specifically for homosexuals in Colorado. By VOLUNTEERING his work, Roberts SUPPORTED that case which utterly demolished the idea of 'states-rights' and blatantly engaged in leftist social-engineering via unfettered judicial activism.

That Roberts had ANYTHING to do with that case should be shocking to anyone concerned about excessive federal interference in purely state constitutional matters - especially when those matters driven home by THE PEOPLE of the state.

In that 1996 case, the people of Colorado were simply LIMITING their own state gov't from creating special "rights, protections and privileges" for people based on a person's private sexual lifestyle.

This is a VERY bad thing for a SCOTUS nominee to be on the side of - even if it was "merely a couple of hours" of pro bono work.



Link Posted: 8/4/2005 8:19:39 PM EDT
I see the LA Times's plan is working brilliantly on you, Macallan. This is no different from Kerry and Edwards reminding America Cheney's daughter is a dyke, or the way they outed Jeff Gannon, and Rick Santorum's press secretary.

The LA Times isn't doing this to show the Left that Roberts may not be such a bad guy after all; they're doing this to erode support for him on the right. Because conservatives all hate fags, right? They're intolerant bigots, and they'll never abide a Supreme Court Justice who doesn't look at homos as sub-humans.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 8:20:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Skibane:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
So if he had volunteered his time pro bono to work on a case the behalf of VPC and the Brady Campaign - you'd think it shouldn't change our opinion of him or his views on the RKBA?

Not if he had also worked on thousands of cases on behalf of the NRA - which judging by his record, is an accurate analogy.


HORSESHIT!

There's absolutely NO sort of longstanding "conservative" or "strict constructionist" track record to this guy.


Again, that he would VOLUNTEER to work on behalf of the gay groups overturning that Colorado referendum in the most blatant display of leftist judical activism seen from the Court in the past 10 years should raise red flags all over the place for this guy.

Link Posted: 8/4/2005 8:24:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 8:25:34 PM EDT by The_Macallan]

Originally Posted By raven:
I see the LA Times's plan is working brilliantly on you, Macallan. This is no different from Kerry and Edwards reminding America Cheney's daughter is a dyke, or the way they outed Jeff Gannon, and Rick Santorum's press secretary.

The LA Times isn't doing this to show the Left that Roberts may not be such a bad guy after all; they're doing this to erode support for him on the right. Because conservatives all hate fags, right? They're intolerant bigots, and they'll never abide a Supreme Court Justice who doesn't look at homos as sub-humans.

DOUBLE HORSESHIT!!!

Conservatives hate leftist judicial activism and heavy-handed Court rulings trampling "states-rights" which is precisely what Roberts supported in "Romer v. Evans"

This is not about "GAYS" - it's about strict constitutional constructivism and believing in the LIMITED power of the FedGov and the Courts in matters not explicitly stated or delegated to them in the Constitution.



Link Posted: 8/4/2005 8:27:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Skibane:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

That this pro bono case is being "used" by the left or not is irrelevant.



It is only "irrelevant" if it doesn't affect your opinion of the man - which is precisely why you are hearing about it now.

img136.imageshack.us/img136/3204/schumershooting5vt.jpg
Look! Chuck Schumer is shooting a gun, AND OBVIOUSLY ENJOYING IT! He must be a 'submarine' for the NRA!


Exactly.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 8:46:05 PM EDT

Renquist-Nixon
Stevens-Nixon
O'Connor-Reagan
Scalia-Reagan
Kennedy-Reagan
Souter-Bush
Thomas-Bush
Ginsburg-Clinton
Breyer-Clinton


Doesn't look like Republican Presidents have been very lucky getting Conservative justices.

On the other hand here's what I wrote to my local rag about how these Paragons of legal thought have gone off the deep end. I put their "New World Thought" items in red


Why don't we pursue the idea of electing, or at the very least "approving" the Supreme Court by national referendum every 8-12 years. We do it in California. What is so sacred about granting lifetime status to 9 people to have sway over our laws. George Washington thought enough of this country to reject being King. Having Supreme Court Justicies appointed for life is just an idea, a custom. We changed the Constitution to forbid more than 2 terms for a President. Surely we can consider that Justices need to answer in some way to the public. Are they not human and capable of being swayed by opinion. Witness the comments of Justice O'Connor, "over time we will rely increasingly, or take notice at least increasingly, of international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues.”

Kennedy says, "“The right the petitioners seek in this case has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries.” when referring to a sodomy case in Texas.

Breyer, citing judicial decisions from Jamaica, India, Zimbabwe, and the European Court of Human Rights said, “A growing number of courts outside the United States … have held that lengthy delay in administering a lawful death penalty renders ultimate execution inhuman, degrading, or unusually cruel.”

Stevens contended that “within the world community, the imposition of the death penalty for crimes committed by mentally retarded offenders is overwhelmingly disapproved,” citing a legal brief from the European Union as his authority.


The point is that this is all dicta, or opinion, and does not carry authority. These justices are bent on making the US live up to "world standards" rather than the law of the Constitution.

They've done nothing impeachable so that's why an amendment to limit their terms is the only alternative to their ignorance of the Constitution.

Confucius said, "When words lose their meaning, a people can move neither hand nor foot."


Link Posted: 8/4/2005 9:02:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Skibane:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

That this pro bono case is being "used" by the left or not is irrelevant.



It is only "irrelevant" if it doesn't affect your opinion of the man - which is precisely why you are hearing about it now.

img136.imageshack.us/img136/3204/schumershooting5vt.jpg
Look! Chuck Schumer is shooting a gun, AND OBVIOUSLY ENJOYING IT! He must be a 'submarine' for the NRA!



Is that really chucky schumer?

He's enjoying himself way too much.

Ben
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 10:09:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 10:10:45 PM EDT by NYPatriot]
Somehow "I TOLD YOU SO" just dosen't cut it!
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 10:18:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NYPatriot:
Somehow "I TOLD YOU SO" just dosen't cut it!

Hey mon - *I* didn't fucking nominate him so don't say "I told you so" to ME!

Link Posted: 8/4/2005 10:33:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 10:34:30 PM EDT by NYPatriot]

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By NYPatriot:
Somehow "I TOLD YOU SO" just dosen't cut it!

Hey mon - *I* didn't fucking nominate him so don't say "I told you so" to ME!




Chill out bro... we're on the same page concerning Roberts.

I was speaking genericly because I've received a lot of flack around here concerning my questions & criticism of Robert's nomination.

I've been raising concerns since the night he was nominated, and now maybe some of the true believers will FINALLY realize that we've been had (yet again)!
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 10:44:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 10:44:36 PM EDT by Mauser101]
I never expected Bush to nominated a man who was as Right leaning as myself or anybody here at arfcom.

Bush isn't even very conservative, what are you expecting here? I don't think you're going to get anybody much farther right out of Bush than Roberts.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 10:49:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mauser101:
I never expected Bush to nominated a man who was as Right leaning as myself or anybody here at arfcom.

Bush isn't even very conservative, what are you expecting here? I don't think you're going to get anybody much farther right out of Bush than Roberts.



For him to keep his campaign promise to the 53% of Americans who voted his ass into office.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 10:55:12 PM EDT
The ulterior motive here is the objection to Robert's faith. The liberals don't like him because as a Catholic, he is pro-life.

The religious right doesn't like him because he is Catholic. Face it, you are picking gnat poop out of pepper.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 11:29:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 11:36:02 PM EDT by NYPatriot]

Originally Posted By Keith_J:
The ulterior motive here is the objection to Robert's faith. The liberals don't like him because as a Catholic, he is pro-life.

The religious right doesn't like him because he is Catholic. Face it, you are picking gnat poop out of pepper.



If your comments were in any way directed at me then I hate to tell you, but you couldn't be anymore WRONG concerning my objections to Roberts. The fact that he is a devout Christian (of any denomination) is one of things that I actually LIKE about the man.

What I (and many others) are worried about is that in the only tangible example so far of how he might rule as a Supreme Court justice, Roberts wound up siding AGANIST Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas. You know... the justices from whom he is supposed to be cut out of the same cloth as.

I thought Roberts was supposed to be a strict Constructionist who believes in the limited power of the Federal government to meddle in matters not explicitly delegated to them in the Constitution?

And to top it all off, he did the work pro bono!

Yup, I said it the night of his nomination... something just ain't right with an "Originalist" appointee who thinks our nation is a Democracy, and who was immediately embraced by the mainstream media & by the majority of Democrat politicians.






Link Posted: 8/4/2005 11:51:07 PM EDT
I personally could give a rats arse about the gay rights issue. I personally dont like gay marriage or any of that other special rights crap but my concern is 2A. Anyone have info on his views of the 2nd ? This will be my concern, not gay rights or even the abortion issue. No I dont like that either but it's not my big issue.
Top Top