Nominee Roberts Pro-Gay Pro Bono Work

[Texsox]

http://pageoneq.com/news/2005/Rightwing_up...y_pro_0805.html

 

Roberts' pro-gay pro-bono work

 

by PageOneQ

 

The New York Times is reporting in Friday’s edition that Supreme Court nominee’s John G. Roberts’ work on behalf of the lesbian and gay community on the Supreme Court case, Romer v. Evans, has conservative backers of President Bush unconvinced that Roberts will represent their issues on the High Court. According to the Times Article (full article, reg. req’d):

 

    The White House immediately sought to reassure Judge Roberts's conservative backers, telephoning prominent leaders, including Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, but it appeared that not all of them had been convinced.

 

The Times also reports that radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, James Dobson of Focus on the Family and Colleen Parro of the Republican National Coalition for Life spoke negatively abut the latest disclosure in the stories surround Judge Roberts' legal career:

 

    …[R]eports of his involvement echoed on conservative talk shows Thursday, generating outrage and disbelief. "There's no question this is going to upset people on the right," Rush Limbaugh told his radio listeners. "There's no question the people on the right are going to say: 'Wait a minute. Wait a minute! The guy is doing pro bono work and helping gay activists?'

 

More at link.

[FlaSoxxJim]

LA Times broke the story and yesterday's ABCNews' The Note did a pretty good summary wrap. Most amusing was the fact that just as the story was breaking there was a big faith-based support vigil in support of Roberts' nomination.

 

As far as I'm concerned, the pro bono work is a plus on his side on my scorecard, though it could certainly be splinter his supporter base. But like the Note reported, it was not even known if Roberts' was senior partner enough to have turned down the pro bono case if the partners decided to take it on. Since that was ostensably THE gay rights case of the 90s though, it is an interesting development in the Roberts nomination process.

[Rex Kickass]

I officially like this guy. Confirm him.

 

Like I said in the beginning, I actually think Bush did not play politics with this nomination. The first time that was done since 1987.

[southsider2k5]

The more I hear that both sides have problems with him, the more I like him.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

I love the LA Times article that has Scalia quoted saying that the Roberts victory in the pro bono case has no basis in Constitutional law and doesn't pretend to. Rehnquist, Thomas and Quackers wrote a scathing response after that case saying that Colorado inhabitants had a right to be intolerant of homosexual activity.

[Balta1701]

The more I hear that both sides have problems with him, the more I like him.

I've said it a couple times before...John Roberts is not the guy Bush would have picked if he had been looking for a fight. There are plenty of people with much more conservative and open records who he could have picked if he really was gearing up for a fight.

 

Roberts is the definition of a "Stealth Nominee" - he doesn't have a long record as a judge, so there aren't a huge number of statements or rulings on which he can be criticized. While he's certainly going to fit into Bush's camp on most issues, there's enough ambiguity in his work to make him a good nominee.

 

I'm a bit concerned by the fact that the WH again is refusing to release some of his documents, but aside from that I don't see anything in his record that looks too outrageous or crazy, to the point where putting up a major fight against him will earn a nominee who's any better.

[Rex Kickass]

The guy doesn't bother me. The stonewalling on behalf of his nomination does.

[FlaSoxxJim]

The guy doesn't bother me. The stonewalling on behalf of his nomination does.

There's still a lot I don't agree with as far as his personal politics, but I can't say that should keep him off SCOTUS.

 

That said, I don't like his track record while he was Starr's deputy Solicitor general:

 

"They [Roberts and Starr] argued for limiting the scope of civil rights laws, ending race-based affirmative action, restoring some prayers to public schools and overruling Roe vs. Wade, the case that established a woman's right to abortion."

 

"They sought to make it harder for environmentalists to challenge the government in court. They intervened on the side of Operation Rescue to shield abortion protesters from being sued. And they joined Texas state lawyers in arguing that new evidence of a death row inmate's 'actual innocence' did not entitle him to reopen his case in federal court."

 

"In the first right-to-die case to reach the Supreme Court, they intervened on the side of then-Missouri Gov. John Ashcroft to argue that state officials may keep a comatose woman alive over the objections of her family."

 

Also, today's The Note confirmed that his work on Romer vs. Evans, ike all pro bono work at the firm he worked for, was entirely voluntary and he didn't have to work on the case if he didn't want to. From the firm's partner who ran the pro bono program:

 

"'Anyone who didn't want to work on a case for whatever matter, they didn't have to,' Smith said. 'He was in on the takeoff and he was in on the landing and was helpful in both.'"

[juddling]

http://pageoneq.com/news/2005/Rightwing_up...y_pro_0805.html

More at link.

OK, I actually HEARD Rush talking about this earlier this week while making deliveries. It was either him or those bozos on the Score. I usually flip a coin. That little blurb quoting Rush at the end is not quite right.

"There's no question this is going to upset people on the right," Rush Limbaugh told his radio listeners. "There's no question the people on the right are going to say: 'Wait a minute. Wait a minute! The guy is doing pro bono work and helping gay activists?'

 

They left out a few words, and didn't carry on what he said. He had said that it would upset SOME people on the right. Then His 'wait a minute' part was him making fun of them! After that, he said that most conservative don't give a rats heinny (his word, not mine) what people do in their own bedrooms, they just don't want to have it thrown at them as something that they HAVE to accept. he then went on to say how alot of liberals will use this to gracefully exit the battle against him, by saying that this shows he will rule on the law, and not try to legislate his beliefs. Sounds to me like the NYT is trying to stir up controversy and sell some papers.

[Texsox]

Actually I figured the GOPernauts were upset that he did any pro-bono work. He worked for free?? :headshake

[kapkomet]

Sounds to me like the NYT is trying to stir up controversy and sell some papers.

 

You're kidding? :o

 

The NYT would do THAT?

 

Say it ain't so!

[JUGGERNAUT]

You can go to the findlaw.com site to read his previous decisions as a judge.

That is more likely to define what he will be like on the USSC than anything else.

 

The guy's decisions are so economically hard-core conservative that even I am scared by this guy. But as you have pointed out the fact that he let $$$ rule over his principles early in his career he is more likely to be confirmed.

 

Mark my words, this guy will jump all over the first case that involves affirmative action.

Mark my words.

[kapkomet]

You can go to the findlaw.com site to read his previous decisions as a judge.

That is more likely to define what he will be like on the USSC than anything else.

 

The guy's decisions are so economically hard-core conservative that even I am scared by this guy.  But as you have pointed out the fact that he let $$$ rule over his principles early in his career he is more likely to be confirmed.

 

Mark my words, this guy will jump all over the first case that involves affirmative action. 

Mark my words.

Interesting. This guy scares Juggs AND the Democrats. He's the perfect candidate.

[Balta1701]

Interesting.  This guy scares Juggs AND the Democrats.  He's the perfect candidate. 

Like I said...if Bush thought he could win a fight, he wouldn't have picked Roberts.

 

Every time they refuse to release a document, I'm still left wondering what's in them though. The Soliciter General is supposed to represent the interests of the United States people, and the citizens of the US should be the bosses of that office. We're being told by the White House that we can't see documents from people who are supposedly working for us.

Edited August 8, 2005 by Balta1701

[Texsox]

Our system works. I'm not really concerned about his politics. I am more concerned about issues of character and integrity. I may not agree with his politics, but so far I have not seen anything that should keep him off the bench.