Patterico's Pontifications

8/4/2005

Roberts Worked on Gay Rights Case — So What?

Filed under: Dog Trainer,Judiciary — Patterico @ 6:49 am



I’m not sure why the L.A. Times thinks that a story titled Roberts Donated Help to Gay Rights Case is front-page news. He wasn’t the lead counsel on Romer v. Evans. He simply helped prepare briefs, and helped prep the person who argued the case. Moreover — just like when he signed a brief that called for Roe v. Wade to be overturned — he was doing his job as an advocate, which doesn’t necessarily say anything about his personal views of the law in this area.

To me, it’s a big: Whatever.

But I can’t see how it hurts him. Maybe some social conservatives who don’t understand a lawyer’s job will get their panties in a twist. (Do social conservatives wear panties?) Maybe Ann Coulter will write another column about how Roberts is just another Souter-in-waiting.

If anything, all of that will probably improve Roberts’s standing with the general public.

25 Responses to “Roberts Worked on Gay Rights Case — So What?”

  1. My guess is that this will be used to counter critics who raise his past skepticism towards privacy rights.

    Geek, Esq. (5dd2be)

  2. ” Moreover — just like when he signed a brief that called for Roe v. Wade to be overturned — he was doing his job as an advocate, which doesn’t necessarily say anything about his personal views of the law in this area.”

    Is that how pro-bono work gets done? Simply as a “job as an advocate”?

    And were the reagan lawyers who signed that brief really just doing their advocate jobs? Ie, did they stay on and work for clinton? Or where they there because of partisan affinity?

    actus (cd484e)

  3. Research that and get back to us.

    Patterico (756436)

  4. The roe v. wade line was written as a deputy SG. He left that job in 93 — though its not clear when in relation to the clinton inaugural. You’d think if it was just a job it wouldn’t matter if there was political affinity.

    actus (cd484e)

  5. I’m just glad he wasn’t a criminal lawyer. No way I want someone on the Supreme Court that is pro murder, rape, theft, and trespassing!

    Lew Clark (a16b48)

  6. That’s why I’m a liberal–I’m pro-death. I’m also very pro-trespassing. I hear that Scalia is pro-murder, too. What a bunch of useless, meaningless, retarded, stupid-ass, polemically impotent labels. God, I hope your mother hits you upside the head for that. Oh wait, I’m pro-getting-whupped-by-your-parents-for-being-ignorant. I guess I’m conservative after all.

    Charles Manson (f5c6db)

  7. It’s first page news since he left any mention of it out of his questionnaire responses which asked for specific instances of pro bono work. His partner helpfully offers it was simple oversight since he wasn’t lead counsel. Puh-leez.

    This still doesn’t reflect badly on Roberts so much as the little White House weasels who are so scared of the base they wanted to white wash this, as I’m quite sure it was they, not Roberts, who determined not to mention it.

    The threads at Free Republic show why they did it-but how did they think this was not coming out, and now in such a way to get even more splash than had it been originally disclosed?

    Martin (da46a2)

  8. OT, but here’s another interesting LAT omission.
    LAT In this article about Garamendi’s proposal for state-sponsored health insurance, there is no mention of a Hispanic woman from East LA, board member of AltaMed, a medical group, who appeared with him and complained that she had to co-pay on visits, blah, blah. Was the Times ignorning this because she is Hispanic, and the program is clearly aimed at insuring illegal immigrants, or becuase AltaMed is a contributor? OCR article

    Patricia (133563)

  9. Among a lot of other things, I’m a social conservative. Why the cheap shot?

    mrmurph (73548d)

  10. I note in your comment that you fail to note that Roberts’ participation was pro bono. You also fail to note that Roberts’ failed to disclose his participation in his Senate questionnaire. You also fail to note that Romer v. Evans was, and is, a landmark decision, severely restricting the rights of States to govern themselves as they see fit.

    By your logic, it really wouldn’t have mattered if Roberts had participated, pro bono, in the representation of Al Gore during the Florida recount, or the representation of Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones litigation. I mean, that’s what lawyers do, right (even on their own time, which is what pro bono work is of course)?

    This is a major leak for Roberts, and poo-pooing it is insufficient.

    Mark D (777f5a)

  11. The roe v. wade line was written as a deputy SG. He left that job in 93 — though its not clear when in relation to the clinton inaugural. You’d think if it was just a job it wouldn’t matter if there was political affinity.

    1) Yeah, but you said lawyers, Actus — plural. I know when Roberts left. What about the rest of them? Any of them career DoJ lawyers?

    Get back to us on that, since you raised it.

    2) No doubt many of these people have a general political affinity with a particular administration; that doesn’t mean they necessarily agree with every statement made in every brief.

    Frankly, I hope Roberts did agree with the statement about Roe — but who knows?

    Patterico (c2939d)

  12. “2) No doubt many of these people have a general political affinity with a particular administration; that doesn’t mean they necessarily agree with every statement made in every brief.”

    All the more reason to ask him about what he chose to sign. He didn’t have to did he?

    actus (cd484e)

  13. Among a lot of other things, I’m a social conservative. Why the cheap shot?

    I am a social conservative on some issues. I wasn’t taking a shot at all social conservatives — only those who don’t understand a lawyer’s job.

    I disagreed with the Romer decision but have no problem with equal rights for homosexuals. Romer wasn’t exactly about giving them equal rights, but about giving them a special right to protection from discrimination because of their status as gays (allowing them a higher judicial scrutiny than someone might receive if they were discriminated against because of their hair color, for example).

    I don’t have a problem with Roberts’s having argued the other side of that case, though it would have required him at the time to have argued against the direct application of a recent precedent (Bowers). And that may be the real lesson for the liberals who are cheered by his participation in arguing the homosexuals’ case in Romer — it may suggest something about his view of Supreme Court precedent that the leftists would like in this case, but wouldn’t like as applied to Roe.

    Patterico (c2939d)

  14. Tomorrow we’ll probably be hearing about Rice v. Cayetano, from which we learn that Roberts supports race-based preferences, set-asides, and reparations.

    The more I read about the guy, and specifically the more I read anecdotes from those who have worked with him, the more I think Roberts should be our next Chief Justice.

    Nels Nelson (741fd5)

  15. Social conservatives are right to be upset, indeed, they’d be foolish not to be. If Roberts would have voted with the majority in Romer, then social conservatives should jettison him. If the guy turns out to be a pro-gay marriage vote, then clearly his appointment would be a catastrophic failure from their perspective.

    True, working on the briefs is hardly indicative of a vote-but with facts like these-how can anybody know what they’re getting? Both sides would be better served if we just cleared the air and ask some very pointed questions at the confirmation hearings.

    Martin (da46a2)

  16. With the placement and tone of this article, the Los Angeles Times insinuates that conservatives hate gays. By Roberts not distancing himself from the case, LA gets to tell the story about how there ought to be a juicy conflict between Roberts and conservatives.

    Shredstar (91b3b2)

  17. It hurts him with what have been his strongest supporters, by far, Evangelical Christians. It may or may not work. When JFK atacked Chenny’s lesbian daughter a lot of Evangilicals switched, but alnost as many non religious went to Bush. The net gain for JFK was small nationwide. But significant in Ohio where it was almost enough.

    There are several blogs that have had either comments or polls on the 08 election. In all of them the Evangelicals are very stridently expressingtheir dislike of Condi because she supports Roe v Wade.
    This was a smart move on the part of JFK, almost got him Ohio and the election. It will have a negative impact on Roberts biggest support group.

    Rod Stanton (7b6143)

  18. The more I learn about Roberts, the more I involuntarily think of Robert Oppenheimer, another man more impressed by his own expertise than by his principles.

    Once on the Court, I think Justice Roberts will be chock full of surprises, though not in the nature of Souter, who isn’t nearly as bright and is just a follower (Souter hasn’t had an original thought since his Mother named him in the cradle).

    Mark D (8d0335)

  19. Rod Stanton: are you claiming that lots of evangelicals who were supporing Bush switched to Kerry when they found out that Chenney had a gay daughter? You’re not really claiming that are you? I must have misunderstood.

    Surely you wouldn’t make a statement that ridiculous without some attempt to back it up.

    Doc Rampage (47be8d)

  20. I am worried about Roberts. Not because of the LAT article your refer to (I haven’t read it.) but because he doesn’t have a clear record. Other individuals were considered who had much clearer records that I would have preferred, no matter how difficult it might have been to get them approved.

    Speaking of approval, the Republicans do have a track record of allowing votes on presidential nominations (see R. Ginsburg), therefore I would like to see the senates ability to fillibuster any presidential nomination done away with. Give them an up or down vote.

    Cliff Autry (7ef7f3)

  21. Give them an up or down vote.
    I am sick of all this pussyfooting around. If Senator Boxer does not like Roberts or Bolton, vote no. The President should do the Reagan thing and have a live prime-time speech where he asks that question: “If Senator Boxer and her friends disapprove of Bolton and Roberts, please vote no! I demand you vote no! Why aren’t you voting no?” The solution to this mess is not to talk about up-or-down. Who the hell goes into the voting booth and votes “up”? Karl Rove, where are you? We need your help.

    Shredstar (91b3b2)

  22. While not a complete disqualifier, I am beginning to wonder if Ann Coulter might be right about this nominee.

    deagle (b04a0e)

  23. “I am sick of all this pussyfooting around”

    They’re in recess and the haven’t even had hearings. What are you talking about?

    actus (a5f574)

  24. actus – This trolling thing you do wastes comment space. (insert my obvious response here). Feel free to respond to my obvious resonse.

    Shredstar (91b3b2)

  25. This was a pro bono case that he volunteeered for. Most people don’t volunteer to work for a cause they do not believe in. What is more serious is that Roberts didn’t mention this case involvement to the WH and it gives pause for concern.

    The only way this will strengthen Roberts case is if he actually is a Souter. If Coulter is wrong I have yet to see anyone respond in an intelligent fashion rebuting her arguments.

    TJ Jacxkson (de4fb8)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0835 secs.