LAT: Partisans Unsure About Roberts Work on Gays' Case(work was voluntary)

[DeepModem Mom]

Partisans Are Unsure About Roberts' Work on Gays' Case
By Maura Reynolds, Times Staff Writer


WASHINGTON -- Supporters and opponents of Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts were caught off guard Wednesday by news that he worked behind the scenes years ago to assist a gay rights group win a key case before the nation's highest court.

Debate erupted on conservative and liberal Web sites, with partisans on both sides asking whether Roberts' assistance to what is usually considered a liberal cause was an aberration from his otherwise conservative record or a sign his views might be more nuanced than commonly thought.

Social and religious conservatives expressed dismay about his participation in the case but said they are not convinced it amounted to an endorsement of gay rights -- a movement they strongly oppose....

***

The White House sought to play down Roberts' participation in the case, known as Romer vs. Evans, in which the Supreme Court in 1996 voted 6-3 to strike down a voter-approved Colorado initiative that would have allowed employers and landlords to exclude gays from jobs and housing....

***

Walter A. Smith, Jr., the partner at Hogan and Hartson who ran the firm's pro bono program, said Roberts took part in the firm's initial meeting to consider accepting the case and that his participation, as in all the firm's pro bono cases, was voluntary....


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scotus5aug05,0,6927688.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[Behind the Aegis]

1. A rare opportunity

It is not often that homophobia can be used for good...but this is one case where we can use their homophobia to eradicate his support from the religious right. I say we have a big ol' gay parade of thanks for him in small town America, complete with Drag Kings impersonating him and Queens impersonating his wife....that'd be a hoot! As much as the right hates abortions, they hate gays more.

[deadparrot]

2. Does that mean we can see the heads of Santorum and Company

explode?

[burrowowl]

3. LOL!

Gets more interesting by the day!
What will Bu$hie do?

[MidwestTransplant]

4. It's the box turtles that have the most to loose!

[Moderator]

5. kick

[sabra]

6. Gay-rights case draws more attention to Roberts

<<SNIP>>
http://khon.com/khon/print.cfm?sid=1151&storyID=6105

Gay-rights case draws more attention to Roberts

WASHINGTON — John Roberts is coming under scrutiny by both liberal and conservative groups after news got out that he did some pro bono work on behalf of gay-rights activists for a Supreme Court case.

While most lawmakers will be eying writings Roberts did during his tenure as deputy solicitor general under the first President Bush, the Supreme Court nominee worked for a decade at the Washington law firm Hogan & Hartson, where he was a partner making more than $1 million a year.

The case in question was Romer vs. Evans. The Supreme Court in 1996 voted, 6 to 3, to strike down a voter-approved Colorado initiative that would have allowed employers and landlords to exclude gays from jobs and housing.

Roberts' involvement in the case was first reported Wednesday by the Los Angeles Times. The Times reported Friday that the news caught both Roberts supporters and opponents off guard.

<</SNIP>>

[napi21]

7. Yep, I heard Falwell and Robertson are freaking!

Hmmm? Wonder if Shrub knew about this part of Roberts?

[TahitiNut]

8. Roberts 'billed' 6 hours to that (pro bono) case. That's it.

If the devil-worshippers freak out about 6 hours, then let them beat up the administration for the documentation created on the public's dime.

The f*cking hypocrisy is beyond appalling.