Roberts donated time to 'gay rights' activists

Since several of us here like the government closest to the people to have the most power wouldn't the limited government philosophy mean that we would not want the State to overrule local governments in their legislation unless such legislation violated the State constitution?

Did the Colorado issue amend the State constitution?

 

I read this in the LA times this morning. WND and the LA times are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Roberts worked for a law firm. The firm was hired by a client. Roberts was assigned as a representative on the case. He represented his client faithfully and adequately. End of story. It was one of hundreds, if not thousands, of cases he's taken on in his early career.

If this demonstrates anything, it shows that Roberts is able to argue cases based solely on the merit of the case, and not on his personal feelings on the matter. That's exactly what we need in a SCOTUS judge: someone who can apply the law solely on the merits of the case, without regard to one's personal feelings. It is the personal feelings of judges that have been the problem for quite some time.

This bolsters his credibility and suitability for the office, instead of having the effect that liberals and hyperconservatives were hoping for.

 

I agree Johnv. I want judges on the SCOTUS who will simply look at the issue before them and if the U.S. constitution allows it, then say so. If it doesn't allow it, then say so. Period.

 

I have been a paralegal in the past and worked with lawyers many times, and I agree with JohnV.

Did I just say I agreed with JohnV! What's the world coming to??

 

Supreme Court nominee Judge John Roberts offered his pro bono services to the gay rights advocates fighting Colorado's Amendment 2 nearly 10 years ago, the Los Angeles Times reported on Thursday.

Accepting a pro bono assignment is generally up to an individual lawyer. Walter A. Smith Jr., head of Hogan & Hartson's pro bono division at the time, recalled that Roberts seemed happy to take on the gay rights case. "He said 'Let's do it,'" Smith told the Times. "And it's illustrative of his open-mindedness, his fair-mindedness. He did a brilliant job."

So it is probably somewhere in the middle of
being given and order or being enthusastic in
offering your services. imho

Most definitely a plus to his company and a
team player.

 

It should be remembered that an attorney argues on behalf of his client, regardless of their personal opinion. If he argued for a homosexual group, I am confident that he was not presenting his own personal views; just those of his client. Attornies do all manner of pro bono work. It is a part of the job, and something that is drilled into them from the start at law school. I would wager that most attornies have represented someone that would surprise you.

 

Roberts did pro bono work for a gay rights group?

(If this is true)

I have a VERY strong feeling that if this was a Clinton appointee the BB pages would be on fire with condemnation of him for this appointment.

 

Once again we have a call to action from the far right that we should do something on the basis that we would do it if it were a Clinton-related case.

That call to action in the Roberts case overlooks the background in the situation.

Roberts was not a conservative-listed candidate when Bush nominated him. Bush is weak in Congress and does not have the power to sustain a long fight over a nominee as is evidenced by the necessary recess appointment of Bolton. Therefore, Bush chose an obsecure candidate.

Personally, I am not happy about another Catholic on the Supreme Court. At first the Constitution Party claimed that he was not pro-life, but that has been laughed out of the discussion--however, Catholicism is not a strike against Roberts per se. Most conservatives have endorsed Roberts.

Civil rights does seem to be the area under attack by the left. The GOP has held that the President should have his choice accepted unless there is a great failing such as something illegal or shady as in the case of Abe Fortas, who sat on the court for a time before it was realized and he was removed in the process of trying to be promoted to Chief, as I recall. So it was that the GOP allowed Ginsburg to sail through in spite of the knowledge that she was just right of the communist party.

In the case of Roberts, the civil rights case involving sodomites was won. Therefore, neither the right or the left is likely to say anything. The left cannot complain about their own; the conservatives are likely to overlook it as only strike one against Roberts, especially in view of the fact that he was on the winning side.

A lawyer can be hurt by the work done by his firm. A few years ago, future Hoosier GOP gubernatorial primary candidate Eric Miller was damaged because someone in his office had represented a child molester in a criminal case. Miller said that he did not know who was doing what in his firm in every instance, but the Democrats said that he should have known and why was a child molester being represented anyway (never mind that any other time they would argue that everyone is entitled to a lawyer).

The BB pages are on fire with condemnation of Bush for the appointment of Roberts but it is all coming from the far right and the Constitution Party. Ann Coulter does not like Roberts because he is so unknown publically, having kept a low-profile until now. Other than that, there is no opposition.

With this one minor flaw, the far right will have a difficult time making a case. Perhaps more will come to light this month. Otherwise, the political system has forced another no-name judge onto the court because that is the way that the Democrats are. The Democrats have shown that they do not want a giant like Bork on the court but that they will accept a nobody like Roberts. I do not see that the nature of the Democrats will change anymore than the nature of the Constitution Party will change as the Constitution Party stands by their call for withdrawal from Iraq on the basis of illegality and stands by their attack against CAFTA (and Hoosier farmers) and against funding the war against terrorism in Colombia as President Bush meets in Crawford today with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.

Afterall, the Constitution Party has no vote in either house of Congress. For the GOP to do the CP's bidding would be against GOP self-preservation.

 

Hmm, perhaps I missed a "call to action" here.

I for one only made an observation. Could you point out this "call to action by the far right..." please?

What action is bring called for?

 

You seem to imply that the BB should be on fire against Roberts and that it is not, although there has been a constant bonfire going. Clearly the Constitution Party is against this candidate, no? Personally, I am against this lackluster system but it is what we have thanks to the Democrats and the Constitituion Party. To me it is more important that we win this war or at least keep trying to win it until the Democrats win an election and stop the war, which is what the Democrats will do if they win an election.

Were you just trying to point out the hypocrisy of the GOP over this action of Bush? Do you think that we should charge this windmill on your behalf? Just what do you think that we should do? Personally, I would send Roberts on some sort of mission to some wasteland such as Ireland and renominate Bork but that is just one of many reasons why I will never be President.

 

Clearly, you perceived any implication, I was only making an observation. Of course, your feelings about the CP seem to often cloud judgement about my posts.

I have no idea what the CP stance on Roberts is, I don't keep up with them.

Your kind comments about my field of service are noted.

I tend to think that Bush could have no a lot worse than Roberts.

 

I don't know about that but I imagine that legally that it would be true that Roberts' work represented the interests of the people signing his paycheck. However, the charge made by the Los Angeles CP lawyer that Roberts is pro-choice is false as Roberts is pro-life.

 

That was not the topic of this thread.

I, for one, have never questioned Robert's pro-life stance.

 

Yeah, I don't think that I would like living in Catholic Ireland. I don't have any feelings about the CP--I think that they should dismantle their 2004 platform and drop Peroutka or at lease have him recant.

Do you agree, C4K, that we are stuck with Roberts because the GOP is too weak to do any better?

 

Personally, I think that Catholic judges are all crummy. I think that Catholicism is essentially contradictory and hostile to Protestantism and that Catholic jurisprudence is poor as evidenced by the legal systems of Catholic nations. Bush is weak in most respects and things are a muddlement but they would be a disaster if the Democrats could have their way. American jurdisprudence is superior to Catholic jurisprudence and is superior to European jurisprudence.

 

Yeah, I don't think that I would like living in Catholic Ireland. I don't have any feelings about the CP--I think that they should dismantle their 2004 platform and drop Peroutka or at lease have him recant.

Do you agree, C4K, that we are stuck with Roberts because the GOP is too weak to do any better? </font>[/QUOTE]First of all, there is no "Catholic Ireland." Some basic research would make that clear. Ireland is a liberal, socialist, materialistic, immoral society. The is nothing even faintly religious about this culture except their heritage. Homosexuality is rampant, the only decent vestige of Catholocism is that abortion is still illegal.

I agree on the weakness of the GOP being the reason for picking Roberts.