LAT: Roberts Worked on Behalf of Gay Activists (pro bono!)

[DeepModem Mom]

Roberts Worked on Behalf of Gay Activists
By Richard A. Serrano, Times Staff Writer


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 convince 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 intimately 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 H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Roberts' role working 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....


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-roberts4aug04,0,1823941.story?coll=la-home-headlines#Scene_1

[LiberalFighter]

1. Who will be the client if he becomes SC Justice?

[wtmusic]

18. SCOTUS is literally above the law

All he has to answer to is the Constitution, and posterity.

And there is a proud and loyal tradition of justices' rulings turning around and biting their nominators in the ass.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wtmusic]

39. Beg to differ

It is impossible for SCOTUS to deliver a ruling which is illegal. Thus, as a group, they are quite literally above the law.

"The decisions of the Supreme Court may not be appealed to any other body; as Justice Robert H. Jackson once famously remarked, "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

btw welcome to DU

:bounce: :toast: :bounce:

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

53. "Above" has more than one dictionary meaning...

Merriam Webster (online): in or to a higher rank or number. So, yes, the Supreme Court's decision are of a higher rank than the law.

[MissMarple]

64. Hi, noah! Welcome to DU.

:hi:

[mondo joe]

70. No - they interpret the law. They are not above it. And their status

as such is PART of the law.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

81. Except for Scalia, of course.

[Occulus]

40. but it can be

if it rules a law unconstitutional, by definition it is ruling the will of the People as being above that law.

The SCOTUS can be seen as being 'above' the law, in the sense that it can render established law invalid.

I'm not saying they're always right, but there it is. The SCOTUS can and has and will render some laws unconstitutional and therefore invalid. In that sense, it is 'above' the law.

[Cha]

31. carlyle

group?

[jarnocan]

Carlyle?

What did he represent them or what? did I miss something (well sure I often do:)

.org

[Cha]

58. roberts hasn't represented them..

that would toooo obvious. I meant that he would be on the scotus to do their bidding.

Just a wild guess.

[Goldmund]

2. Well well...

Isn't this interesting...

[TrogL]

3. OK, I'm impressed

I'm wondering if he's old-school conservative - a true jurist - rather than a right-wing hack.

[Jersey Ginny]

4. This gives me some hope, but I want to know more

I remain concerned about him, but this article is heartening. I hope it is not all lies.

[Wickerman]

5. But that would mean that Bush**, made a *gasp* mistake

because you know he wants a partisan hack who will change the landscape of the US forever, cementing the return of the days of the robber-barons and an ultra-rich/privileged class vs. a single layer of paycheck to paycheck subsisters.

[wtmusic]

17. It's a mistake because it could be the best thing he's done since

he took office.

And anything good would have to be a mistake.

[Brooklyn Michael]

59. Would that mean....?

....that all the people who instantly howled that Roberts was a Neo-Con-devil-Scalia-clone (before they actually knew anything about the guy) ALSO made a mistake?

I know, I know...playing Devil's Advocate here (no pun intended)...but I'm just sayin'....

:dilemma:

[Wickerman]

60. All I know is that we'll know by the end of next summer

when the next term ends.
:dilemma:

[merwin]

10. That's what I've been saying since he got nominated.

It's a very weird thing to think of (bush appointing a REAL conservative), but I get the impression that bush is 'acting' when he's pandering to the religious right... appointing a couple of federal judges who are neocons, and not fucking up the supreme court nomination...

Most of Robert's 'contraversial' points have been made while he was a corporate lawyer. What people don't understand is that lawyers are paid to take the positions of their clients. That doesn't necessarily reflect HIS opinions. When a lawyer is speaking in front of a judge, he is acting as the representative of his client.

[Imagine My Surprise]

54. I'm beginning to think he might be a true jurist

[Bumblebee]

6. Wow -- does it mean the RW will now drop him, like they did Frist?

[bliss_eternal]

7. Client's views are NOT necessarily shared by lawyers

who argue on his or her behalf.

Hello?!?

He took on what he may have considered an earlier professional challenge, but this is no way indicates for me that he is pro-gay. He is still the devil from where I sit.

Someone has also had to argue for the rights of the KKK, murderers and rapists. Doesn't necessarily mean they agree with their clients innocence, or in the crimes they committ. They did their jobs.

Sorry, I am NOT impressed by one case, one moment in time. The BIGGER picture of his career is what should be focused on.

:grr:

[Jersey Ginny]

9. I'm cautious too

But they guy is likely to get confirmed anyway, so I'm having some shred of hope that he might support equal protection under the law issues. His apparent stance on the CT decision regarding birth control pills is over the edge. Basically, we don't know who this guy is and that is troubling and unnecessary.

[progressivebydesign]

13. But pro bono?? Those are usually cases close to the heart. odd. n/t

[jobycom]

24. It says "his law firm." Does that mean it was one he started, or one he

worked for? Would make a big difference.

[wtmusic]

15. It was PRO BONO

he worked for free.


Hello?! :crazy:

[Igel]

37. I've heard that some lawyers and companies

wind up volunteering for pro bono work even in the absence of a specific case; they're on a list, the judge assigns them.

In any event, his firm volunteered; it then assigned him; it may be that the partners as a whole liked this particular case, for whatever reason. Maybe they were perceived as gay-hostile; maybe they just wanted to test the law. Somebody should ask them.

Less here than meets the eye, unless we've been assuming that when they say he represents his client, not himself, they've all been lying.

[bliss_eternal]

45. This is correct information. Pro Bono in a law firm is no

different than a company offering a free service to get their name out to the public that they are open for business.

Actually in a law firm, (as stated in the post above)it could have been for pr--to make the firm look good, etc. OR it could have been for any number of corporate political reasons.

It's ONE postive thing he did, one.

[jobycom]

28. The only part that impresses me

is that he can apparently put his right wing views aside to make a good legal argument. Still, we don't know what his motivation was on this case, and we all seem to be forgetting that he was a member of the Federalist Society and lied about it. IIRC, wasn't he linked to Ken Starr?

His work with Reagan and his ideas on circumventing voting rights and civil rights are still enough for me to oppose him and want a filibuster.

[Goldmund]

8. I'm really curious to see what happens when the Freepi pick this up

[Lone_Star_Dem]

11. My thought also

Do they praise him for being unbiased or persecute him for defending gay rights? This could be interesting.

[Goldmund]

27. There it is

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4256358

[DeepModem Mom]

29. Oh, Lord. Thanks for reporting, Goldmund. nt

[progressoid]

56. Whaaaaat the fuuuu...

"But if the facts are true, it does make me think Ann Coulter was on to something about him being a closet liberal."

[Bumblebee]

63. Here is your answer from the other side:

"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?"

[UrbScotty]

12. Goodbye sanctity of marriage (nt)

[wtmusic]

14. Where are all the kneejerkers hiding now

c'mon, face the music you wimps :P

[Terran]

16. This is *really* going to drive the fundies nuts.

"Roberts is pro-Gay Agenda!" I can hear the screeching now.

[daleo]

19. The wording may be significant here

"the conservative Roberts helped represent the gay activists as part of his law firm's pro bono work."

They say "his law firm's" pro bono work, not his. So he may well have been getting paid by the firm for his time - i.e. the firm may have been picking up the tab, not him. I don't know for sure, but you always have to watch for clever wording.

[wtmusic]

20. You know Dobson et al will be parsing the hell out of this too nt

[jobycom]

26. Was it his law firm, or the law firm he worked for? It's not clear.

[daleo]

30. I think more likely law firm he worked for

This is later in the story:

"The lawyer who asked for his help on the case, Walter A. Smith Jr., then-head of the pro bono department at Hogan & Hartson, said Roberts didn't hesitate."

There is also this, which makes me wonder if the story isn't a red herring to get liberals to say "oh well, he isn't so bad then".

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

"John probably didn't recall (the case) because he didn't play as large a role in it as he did in others," Smith said. "I'm sure John has a record somewhere of every case he ever argued, and Romer he did not argue. So he probably would have remembered it less.""

Some other stuff later in the story implies that he was fairly active in this effort (helped on a moot court, gave advice etc.). Still, my level of trust is not high. Maybe I am too suspicious.

[jobycom]

35. The man lied about the Federalist society, hung with Starr, and wanted

to weaken the voting rights act and other civil rights legislation under Reagan. I don't think you are too suspicious in the least.

[bliss_eternal]

47. Thank YOU! Anyone can find ONE good thing

in a person's past. Or at least a good thing that the Repukes know will look favorable to the left.

This smells foul to me, I'm not buying.

I couldn't stand Ron Reagan, but I'm sure if I tried really hard I could find a positive quality of the man, or something he did or said that I didn't find completely deplorable.

So what? Did he still do a great deal of damage during his time in office?

This guy, if nominated could as well. He could even announce once on the bench, that he 'argued' for gay rights but doesn't personally support them. :eyes:

[shanti]

38. it's more of a case of

divide and conquer. i don't trust this either.

[currents]

21. Are you sure it wasn't Pro Boner?

Just wondering...

[DeepModem Mom]

22. Funny, currents -- welcome to DU!

:D

[currents]

42. Thanks for the welcome Deep,

It's hard to get a post noticed around here with this high volume site. DU is great and most of the members seem to be pretty level headed.

[bliss_eternal]

46. Welcome to DU, currents!

:hi:

Don't let the volume intimidate you--just jump right in, the waters fine.

[burrowowl]

25. He is a good lawyer

and does what his client needs. That is not the question.
Will he be a good judge, remains to be seen and I hope we don't have to.

[cosmicdot]

32. the selling of the product continues - Roberts is a trojan horse

the corporate media investigating and 'reporting' to help Roberts' confirmation -- hmmm

I'll be surprised if this LA Times article was printed without White House approval.

Is this White House operating somehow different with this nomination vs. everything else it has done? Has the agenda been put on hold for this nomination? I think not.

It isn't the fundamentalists Bu$hCo is trying to fool with releases of information such as this.

I'm sure the CNP, where corporate america and fundamentalists come together, is OK with Roberts.


a lot of conclusions, inferences, implications, etc.

"appears to illustrate" is not a fact; proves zilch

"There is no other record of Roberts being involved in gay-rights cases that would suggest his position on such issues." Some behind the scenes work on a pro bono case doesn't 'suggest' anything either. He was loyal to corporation-friendly Hogan & Hartson and to himself - the partners at Hogan & Hartson probably have the champagne on ice. He was, "Then a lawyer specializing in appellate work", wanting to move up in the firm imo. What was he to do: fail?

The 'reporter' quotes Lambda's Suzanne Goldberg (now an Associate Professor of Law, Rutgers School of Law-Newark) . When did she say the case was the "single most important positive ruling in the history of the gay-rights movement."? At the time of the decision?
The reporter virtually implies the statement is current; ergo, relating to Roberts.

How can anyone not recall such a milestone in civil rights???

It should have been highlighted on the questionnaire and any other paperwork submitted: in ALL CAPS.



(New York, July 20, 2005) — Lambda Legal Executive Director Kevin Cathcart made the following statement concerning the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts.

“In nominating Judge John G. Roberts to replace Justice O’Connor on the Supreme Court President Bush has just about guaranteed that divisiveness will continue to reign in the judicial nomination process. Some have suggested that Judge Roberts is well-liked, but with all due respect, we need to know if he will stand up for the rights of all Americans not whether some people think he’s a nice guy.”

http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/press.html?record=1747

[bliss_eternal]

48. I agree with you wholeheartedly--see post 47

I am not understanding why so many on this thread are so quick to just buy what is being put out there, and again it is ONE point. Merely ONE. One positive aspect he was hired to argue for--free or not, doesn't dismiss the horrors this guys is known to be in support of.

How can a board full of people that has said again and again, to NOT trust the mainstream media, buy into this sort of thing?

It's mind boggling to me...

:eyes:

[hunter]

72. I'm not buying Roberts.

I don't believe he will stand up for my rights.

:kick:

[deadparrot]

33. Duck! Freeper heads exploding everywhere!

Okay, I still think Roberts is, on the whole, :puke:

But watching the Freeper response to this has me :rofl:

[VegasWolf]

34. and he did this work Pro Bono! Maybe he liked the cause or there

were simply no good conservative cases to try. Wasn't
Ann Coulter getting all over his ass for being a closet liberal?
Interesting tidbit of information anyway.

[jobycom]

36. Or maybe he just stuck his head in a door and answered a question

to impress his boss, and never even cared what the case was about. It impressed me when I first read the story, now I'm not so sure. Someone else pointed out that the story also suggests Roberts played a minor role in the case.

[bliss_eternal]

49. ...AND when has bushco NOT had items that support

their agenda, conveniently placed in the mainstream media?

They KNOW this would look favorable to those of us that were (and are) offended by their use of gays as scapegoats to further their careers. So they throw us this...

Again, minor role. Blown up in article to look like it's more than that and he may be 'empathetic to gay causes.'

[VegasWolf]

61. I'm sure that Rove's media friends would play down Robert's role.nt

[CityDem]

41. Roberts has been preparing for the Court for years

This guy has been groomed for the SCOTUS for years. He has not published controversial articles in legal publications which could be used against him in confirmation hearings. He was not a terribly active member of the Federalist Society -- he left an out to make it appear he wasn't even a member. It makes sense he would do some pro bono work for progressive causes to strengthen his resume, even if he didn't believe in the cause. He is a very good appellate lawyer and may have contributed to the outcome of the case, but we cannot assume he is a supporter of gay rights.

Roberts does not have a paper trail and we know so little about him. I would read very little into his pro bono efforts in this case other than he was looking to appear even handed for future confirmation hearings. My hunch is this guy is very conservative and will be another Rehnquist.

[AlamoDemoc]

43. What ever happen to 65 or so questions Sen. Schumer gave him as home-work

questions?

[Ian David]

50. Heh. forwarded article to fundie groups. n/t

[Rose Siding]

51. hummm....the advice given seems pretty simplistic

Wouldn't most untrained people guess these two things would be crucial in an appearance before the court?

snip>
She said he gave her advice in two areas that were "absolutely crucial."

"He said you have to be able to count and know where your votes are coming from. And the other was that you absolutely have to be on top of why and where and how the state court had ruled in this case," Dubofsky said.

She said Roberts served on a moot court panel as she prepared for oral arguments, with Roberts taking the role of a Scalia-like justice to pepper her with tough questions.

When Dubofsky appeared before the justices, Scalia did indeed demand specific legal citations from the lower-court ruling. "I had it right there at my fingertips," she said.

[tblue37]

52. It seems obvious that Roberts has been "groomed" for this SC position

for a very long time. On the other hand, it seems possible that he has also groomed himself for it. If that is something he has always wanted, he might have made the decision a very long time ago to do what he had to do--including joining the Federalist Society, cozying up to corporate clients, connecting with the Republican machine--because he knew the route to a Supreme Court seat was in that direction.

He is going to be confirmed. Of that I am sure. Therefore, I will hope for the best until the worst happens. Perhaps we will be pleasantly surprised.

[jillan]

55. I can't wait until we see the religious right go from praising to

condemning.

This could be a fun August!

Maybe Roberts even lets his kids watch Sponge Bob:rofl:

[Javaman]

57. Post this little tidbit on freerepuke and see how they react LOL

[xyboymil]

62. Family Research Counci will be stroking over this.,.

How fitting for those assholes.

[Kevin Spidel]

65. Report: Roberts Instrumental In Winning Gay Rights Case

Source: http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/08/080405roberts.htm

Report: Roberts Instrumental In Winning Gay Rights Case
by Doreen Brandt 365Gay.com Washington Bureau

Posted: August 4, 2005 12:01 am ET Updated: 11:00 am ET


















(Washington) President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court reportedly was instrumental in winning a landmark 1996 gay civil rights case before the high court.

But, LGBT activists remain concerned about his appointment.

The Los Angeles Times reports that John G. Roberts Jr. worked behind the scenes for a coalition of gay-rights groups, helping them prepare their arguments to present to the court.

The case was Romer vs. Evans, which sought to have struck down a voter-approved 1992 Colorado initiative allowing employers and landlords to exclude gays from jobs and housing.

The coalition won the case in a 6-3 decision.


<snip>

[Guckert]

66. I bet the Party of Hate are getting a little nervous about his pick now??

[VegasWolf]

67. I thought that Rove's spin was that Roberts only had a minor, really

too small to even mention, part. Rove says this to keep
the party in line. Bush's only real litmus test is that Roberts
side with big business, this is all this crew really cares about.
Bush numero uno's pick, Souter, also sides with business and
is liberal on social issues. By God, Ann Coulter may actually be
correct. I might have to eat my shoes.

[hunter]

68. Gay rights, abortion, "intelligent design..."

The Bush Administration doesn't give a damn about any of these things. These issues are simply distractions they throw up whenever things get hot.

It's their way of yelling "Hey, look over there!" as they take your wallet or stab you in the back.

Roberts has made the bulk of his career supporting politically corrupt relationships between very large corporations and the federal government.

It has always been his job, since he started working for the Reagan Administration, to clean up after the pigs. Almost everything he has ever written, from his "fair housing" work in the early 'eighties, to the infamous Washington Metro "french fry" case, can be summarized as shit doesn't smell.

A cynical person might say that's the job of any lawyer, to convince a judge and jury that "shit doesn't smell," but that's not true. There are many legal questions that illuminate what sort of people, and what sort of nation we are. Presumably these are the sorts of questions that reach the Supreme Court.

When people accuse Roberts of being a "stealth" nomination, I think they are right. When Roberts walks into a dark room he doesn't look for the light switch, he uses his flashlight, and he only points it in the direction his masters tell him to.

I am even suspicious about Roberts' motives in this gay rights case. I believe he was there to put out a political fire.

I live in California and I fought against Proposition 22, the anti-gay marriage initiative of 2000.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/668765.stm

The Catholic Church, of course, supported the initiative and was the biggest single donor to the Proposition 22 campaign, which inevitably put me at odds with our Bishop.

I specifically asked my Bishop about the Church's financial support of the proposition, and he answered that it was to "control the public discourse."

The Catholic Church, along with the Church of Later Day Saints, were very much afraid that radical right wing fundamentalists would discredit the other supporters of proposition 22.

I think that's what Roberts was all about in the Colorado case -- controlling the public discourse. He was there as damage control.

Roberts has always been there for the Reagan and Bush Administrations as damage control. To me he smells as bad as the rest of them.

[Politicub]

69. It doesn't mean that much

But it's fun watching the freeper meltdown over this...

:rofl:

[Raiden]

71. Bwahahahaha!! Freeper Melt Down!

Reminds me of the Chappelle's Show skit where he's a blind KKK member who happens to be black (unknown to himself) and at the end where he takes his hood off, and a KKK guy's head explodes he's so shocked! LOL

[seriousstan]

73. 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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20050804/ts_latimes/robertsdonatedhelptogayrightscase;_ylt=All6N4kAWjd1maH.bdGz1Lqs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-

[William769]

74. I still don't trust him.

[vogonjiltz]

75. No kidding, maybe he'll get opposition from the Repubs.

All in all though, I feel that there are plenty worst people for Bush to nominate.

[Up2Late]

82. He already is, NPR did a story today that said the "Religious-Right"

are having Second thoughts about Roberts.

[SmokingJacket]

76. So does that mean the fundamentalist contingent will help take him down?

:popcorn:

[Eric J in MN]

79. Rush Limbaush's spin is to bash the LA TIMES for their

"insidious" article on this.

Limbaugh says it's a plot by the LA TIMES to turn conservatives against John G. Roberts, based on the false assumption that conservatives hate gays.

[Politicub]

77. Don't you love the sound of the freepers' heads exploding?

They are falling all over themselves to rationalize the fact that he doesn't hate homosexuals enough.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Straight Shooter]

78. "... to zealously represent the interests of the client ..."

His client will be the same one as Scalia's; namely, george w. "fuck y'all" bush.

[dArKeR]

80. Does it seem to you the pic associated with this story is about 20 years

ago?