Supreme Court nominee John Roberts helped on gay-rights case

[Destino]

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

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

The coalition won its case, 6-3, in what gay activists described at the time as the movement's most important legal victory. The three dissenting justices were those to whom Roberts is frequently likened for their conservative ideology: Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Roberts' work on behalf of gay 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.

There is no other record of Roberts being involved in gay-rights cases that would suggest his position on such issues. He has stressed, however, that a client's views are not necessarily shared by the lawyer who argues on his or her behalf.

The lawyer who asked for his help on the case, Walter 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," Smith said.

Roberts did not mention his work on the gay-rights case in his 67-page response to a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire released Tuesday. The committee asked for "specific instances" in which he had performed pro bono work, how he had fulfilled those responsibilities and the amount of time he had devoted to them.

But Smith said yesterday that was probably just an oversight because Roberts was not the chief litigator in Romer v. Evans, which struck down a voter-approved 1992 Colorado initiative that would have allowed employers and landlords to exclude gays from jobs and housing.

Jean Dubofsky, lead attorney on the case and a former member of the Colorado Supreme Court, said she came to Washington to prepare for the U.S. Supreme Court presentation and immediately was referred to Roberts.

"Everybody said Roberts was one of the people I should talk to," Dubofsky said. "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.

"John Roberts ... was just terrifically helpful in meeting with me and spending some time on the issue. He seemed to be very fair-minded and very astute."

Dubofsky said Roberts helped her form the argument that the initiative was illegal because it violated the "equal-protections" clause of the Constitution.

In a blistering dissent in the case, Scalia, joined by Rehnquist and Thomas, had said that "Coloradans are entitled to be hostile toward homosexual conduct." Scalia added that the majority opinion giving the victory to the gay-rights activists "has no foundation in American constitutional law, and barely pretends to."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...roberts04.html

[Prosperity]

Huh, I think this might make a lot of people angry.

[Predicto]

As an attorney, he represents the clients of his firm to the best of his ability. Good for him - I would expect no different.

However, this is why it is hard to fairly evaluate a Supreme Court nominee based on their actions as an attorney. A few attorneys represent causes, but most attorneys represent clients. It is only after they are a judge for a while that you can read their decisions to examine whether their own personal views excessively influenced those decisions. In other words, do they decide things based on the law.

I have no reason to think there is any problem with Roberts, but it sure would have been useful if he had a longer appellate court track record with which to evaluate him.

[Kilmer17]

"I have no reason to think there is any problem with Roberts, but it sure would have been useful if he had a longer appellate court track record with which to evaluate him."

It sure would have been useful.

But we know who prevented this.

Im pretty certain that Roberts will be an almost perfect mold of O'Connors judicial philosophies once he's on the court.

THAT will piss more than a few people off.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by Kilmer17
"I have no reason to think there is any problem with Roberts, but it sure would have been useful if he had a longer appellate court track record with which to evaluate him."

It sure would have been useful.

But we know who prevented this.

Oh, please enlighten me and tell me how it's the democrats who are preventing the releasing of his records

Im pretty certain that Roberts will be an almost perfect mold of O'Connors judicial philosophies once he's on the court.

THAT will piss more than a few people off.

Yep, already seeing the right canabalize itself. It should be fun over the next four years watching the internal distruction of the Republican party.

[Kilmer17]

Originally posted by chomerics


Oh, please enlighten me and tell me how it's the democrats who are preventing the releasing of his records



Yep, already seeing the right canabalize itself. It should be fun over the next four years watching the internal distruction of the Republican party.

Ive been hearing that for 6 years now. Let us know when it happens.

As for your first point, you mistunderstood. The Dems prevented him from becoming a Judge when Bush 1 nominated him. So they are to blame for his lack of service as an appelate Judge.

[Predicto]

Originally posted by chomerics


Oh, please enlighten me and tell me how it's the democrats who are preventing the releasing of his records



Yep, already seeing the right canabalize itself. It should be fun over the next four years watching the internal distruction of the Republican party.

Kilmer is not talking about the release of the records. He is expressing the view that nominees have to have a limited paper trial or else they get "Borked" by the partisan Democrats in the Senate.

I do not agree with him, of course.

[Predicto]

Whoops, I was wrong.

Different point entirely.

[E-Dog Night]

Huh, this is kind of funny.

A friend of mine who works for a political think tank here in DC is convinced that Roberts is a closet homo, which I would normally discount, except my friend is gay and as such has a finely tuned gaydar. He says that all his gay friends are pretty convinced as well. They are all suposedly looking for the "smoking gun" (pun definitely intended) to out him.

This means nothing of course. Just an observation.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere we go again

[Thiebear]

He proof read a report for someone else...
Doesnt really count, but the pro-bono is nice..

*I normally never take credit for proof reading and editing someone elses work*

[Gichin13]

Originally posted by Predicto
As an attorney, he represents the clients of his firm to the best of his ability. Good for him - I would expect no different.

However, this is why it is hard to fairly evaluate a Supreme Court nominee based on their actions as an attorney. A few attorneys represent causes, but most attorneys represent clients. It is only after they are a judge for a while that you can read their decisions to examine whether their own personal views excessively influenced those decisions. In other words, do they decide things based on the law.

I have no reason to think there is any problem with Roberts, but it sure would have been useful if he had a longer appellate court track record with which to evaluate him.

Predicto, going to bait again -- you still bound by confidentiality of your position now that the former Justice has moved on to greener pastures, or are you allowed to comment?

[portisizzle]

Originally posted by chomerics


Yep, already seeing the right canabalize itself. It should be fun over the next four years watching the internal distruction of the Republican party.

Wow. You mean like the Democrats have done over the past twenty years?


"Internal destruction".

[stevenaa]

"Oh, please enlighten me and tell me how it's the democrats who are preventing the releasing of his records"


Records that have never been released for any other nominee in history. Typical liberal tactic. Trying to make conclusions on how he'll rule on future cases, and then trying to get him to say how he'd rule during future during his confirmation hearing. Ie. Roe vs. Wade and such. He'd better just refuse to answer. The Dems are definately looking for dirt.

[Gichin13]

Originally posted by stevenaa
"Oh, please enlighten me and tell me how it's the democrats who are preventing the releasing of his records"


Records that have never been released for any other nominee in history. Typical liberal tactic. Trying to make conclusions on how he'll rule on future cases, and then trying to get him to say how he'd rule during future during his confirmation hearing. Ie. Roe vs. Wade and such. He'd better just refuse to answer. The Dems are definately looking for dirt.

I think it would be a mistake. This guy has a really good rep. He seems real conservative, but he also seems intellectually honest and open to discussion which is a lot better than many who could have been selected. He clearly is coming more from litigation/judicial pedigree rather than political operative status so he is ok by me.