John Roberts represented pro-gay rights group. Pro-bono. In 1996.

[Modem Butterfly]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.roberts04aug04,1,4018723.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true

WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. 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 private lawyer in Washington specializing in appellate work, Roberts helped represent the gay activists as part of his pro bono work at his law firm. He did not write the legal briefs or argue the case before the high court; he was instrumental in reviewing the filings and preparing oral arguments, several lawyers intimately involved in the case said.

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

SNIP

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 the client's behalf.

[elehhhhna]

1. That story is causing a Freeper MELTDOWN!!!! Mwahahahah!

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
More evidence Ann Coulter is right and this guy should never have been nominated!



3 posted on 08/04/2005 7:40:00 AM PDT by kharaku (G3 (http://www.cobolsoundsystem.com/mp3s/unreleased/evewasanape.mp3))
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies >

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
The more I read on Roberts the less certain I am about his credentials. I have to admit I'm truly torn over this one. Do we value the Presidents right to his choice over our need for a more conservative court. God help us if we get another Souter. Why couldn't the President nominate a Sam Alito or Miguel Estrada. Oh well, que sera, sera.



4 posted on 08/04/2005 7:40:33 AM PDT by Guht
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies >

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
John Roberts is an attorney.



5 posted on 08/04/2005 7:41:03 AM PDT by cripplecreek (If you must obey your party, may your chains rest lightly upon your shoulders.)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies >

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: nuffsenuff
ping to post 3...it's already working...



6 posted on 08/04/2005 7:41:06 AM PDT by MikeinIraq (When Judge Roberts is confirmed, FR will be EXTREMELY funny that day...Get your PROZAC here!!!)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies >

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: nuffsenuff
or post 4....



7 posted on 08/04/2005 7:41:30 AM PDT by MikeinIraq (When Judge Roberts is confirmed, FR will be EXTREMELY funny that day...Get your PROZAC here!!!)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies >

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Damn.

A man of Roberts' stature can pick and choose his pro bono work. He didn't marry until he was past 40. Is the wife a beard?

[Modem Butterfly]

5. Post a link to the thread man!

[elehhhhna]

8. Here you go (but hold your nose!)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1456802/posts#comment?q=1

[movie_girl99]

13. jesus that's funny

i hate to go to that site but i had to see this.

[Prism]

2. I'll take . . .

. . . things I never expected to see for $400, Alex.

[im10ashus]

3. Now THAT'S interesting.

But as it states, he was working on the client's behalf.

[Modem Butterfly]

4. I don't think it means Roberts is pro-gay rights

But I do think it means he might be more fair-minded than we think.

I also think it means that the righties might have nominated another Souter, i.e., a bed-rock, hard-core moderate.

[im10ashus]

12. I could deal with another Souter.

This is definitely a personal issue with me. As a gay man, I don't want to turn back time to when we had no rights.

[Gruenemann]

9. But he wasn't getting paid, right?

Isn't that what 'pro-bono' means? So he must have been interested in the case, not his clients' money...

[im10ashus]

11. Good point.

I wonder what his personal opinion is of gay rights. Will that be brought up in the confirmation hearings?

[Deja Q]

6. Not "Pro-boner"?

This turn of events is interesting, certainly... especially if he did a thorough and excellent job.


:popcorn:

[slackmaster]

16. It's frightening how often you and I share a thought, HypnoToad

Areas of disagreement notwithstanding.

[Gildor Inglorion]

7. Well, whatever his motives, hooray for Roberts!

I can't be cynical about everything, all the time. Whether his heart was in it or not, he participated in bringing about a good result, and I thank him. :D

[Modem Butterfly]

10. See how they hate

From the article:

Gay rights activists across the country cheered the decision. Suzanne B. Goldberg, a staff attorney 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."

Scalia, in a blistering dissent joined by Rehnquist and Thomas, said that "Coloradans are entitled to be hostile toward homosexual conduct."

Scalia said the majority opinion had "no foundation in American constitutional law and barely pretends to."

[merh]

14. So is the Roberts nomination a win-win for dems?

If the fundies hate him, will repukes not back the prez nomination and will we be saved from the neo-con of choice?

Or

Is he a Souter, a moderate that cares about the rights of individuals, including the rights of gays?


We definitely live in interesting times. :popcorn:

[bloom]

15. I think he is far to the right

and maybe he is gay.

[merh]

17. So he either gets the nod and is like Souter on the bench

or he doesn't win approval and another neo-con has to be found and the prezidip doesn't get another appointment he wants. Who is keeping score on the nominees that didn't make it?

The bald NYPD commissioner is one.

[Modem Butterfly]

18. What makes you think he's gay?

[Wapsie B]

19. Let's see if I get this straight.

The gay-hating fetus lovers put everything they've got and then some into getting and keeping the chimp in office so they could finally gain control over the SCOTUS and take it out of the clutches of those evil libruls. And all they have to show for it is a guy who may or may not be to the right of Attila the Hun?

Question: When will the god squad figure out they've been duped?

[liberal N proud]

20. Meanwhile: No More Smooth Sailing – Roberts' Nomination Has Hit ...

Stormy Waters!
Tell Your Senators to Demand Full Disclosure from the White House.
Tens of thousands of you have already sent a message to the Senate: Accept nothing less than full cooperation from the White House and John Roberts! While they're home during the August recess, your Senators need to hear us demand that they stand tall and do their constitutional duty.

Petition your senators now!

Each day brings more troubling news about Roberts’ approach to our constitutional and civil rights--and more evidence that the White House can’t be allowed to keep important parts of Roberts’ record secret. Based on what we already know, Roberts has a lot of explaining to do.

When Roberts worked for the Reagan Justice Department, for example, he derided what he termed the “so-called” right to privacy and said that it is “not to be found in the Constitution.” The Washington Post reported yesterday that Roberts, referring to the Supreme Court’s landmark privacy ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut, praised a dissent that would have permitted states to prosecute people for using contraceptives--even married couples!


But this is only the tip of the iceberg. Here are some highlights from what the press uncovered over the last week. While working under Republican presidents, John Roberts:

supported regulatory changes that would have permitted the federal funding of discrimination against women, minorities, people with disabilities, and older Americans (Washington Post, July 26 );
argued that Congress should strip the Supreme Court of authority to rule on cases regarding abortion, school prayer, and certain school desegregation remedies (New York Times, July 28 );
argued that affirmative action programs were bound to fail because they required "the recruiting of inadequately prepared candidates" (New York Times, July 28 );
criticized the Supreme Court decision forbidding organized prayer in public schools;
sought to expand the ability of prosecutors and police to question suspects out of the presence of their attorneys (Washington Post, July 26 );
and argued that the Justice Department should not intervene on behalf of female prisoners who were discriminated against in a job-training program (New York Times, July 28 );
…and this information comes from documents the White House willingly made available!

John Roberts is up for one of the most critical jobs in our democracy. Given emerging reports like the ones above, the Senate must conduct a comprehensive review process--and that includes demanding full cooperation from the White House and answers from nominee Roberts.

Don't forget: even some Senators who support Roberts will stand up for other Senators' right to ask questions – especially if they know the public expects it.

Whether your senators are Republican or Democrat, they need to know that their public is on the side of full disclosure. It's the American Way.

Tell them with our petition right now. If you have already signed, get your friends on board!
http://Petition.SaveTheCourt.org

– Your Allies at People For the American Way

[julialnyc]

21. I couldn't help going to the freeper site to see what they have to say

Ha ha

they are not happy!!!!

(I'm sure this guy is very conservative, but at least somewhere in there he has a heart)

[julialnyc]

22. kos has this

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/4/11415/23695

[bushisanidiot]

23. Well, as Jeff Gannon and Laura Bush can tell you, AWOL is gay, so

why wouldn't he nominate a gay man for the supreme court? his boy-toy jeff might have been his first choice, but he got busted with that porn site for hot military gay guys. roberts is probably AWOL's second choice.

[Modem Butterfly]

25. Yikes.

[Modem Butterfly]

26. Yikes.

[applegrove]

24. Like I say - bush has no intention of 'fixing' the gay issue. Its

festering by mobilization of the right - will be the key ingredient in the 30 year GOP rule. Abortion? Will never be touched either except on the outskirts.

Repukes cannot win without these two issues and religious right are too stupid to realize they are continually being used...by their brain stems.

[wli]

27. he's still 720 degrees to the right of anything sane

[0rganism]

28. The funny thing is, this will do more to hold up his nomination

...than all the reports of him coming out against civil rights, or the non-disclosure of his records from working with republican administrations.

Racism? Fine.
Stonewalling? Fine.
Rights for queers? OFF WITH HIS HEAD!

I weep for my country.