supreme court nominees and gays, oh my

Jackie Pies

check it out on any news source, it's for real, oh no.
Supreme Court nominee Judge John G. Roberts Jr. gave advice to advocates for gay rights a decade ago, helping them win a landmark 1996 ruling protecting gay men and lesbians from state-sanctioned discrimination.

from NY Times (communists you'll say, but you can see it anywhere:
Judge Roberts, at the time an appellate lawyer for the Washington firm of Hogan & Hartson, did not write legal briefs or argue the case, lawyers involved said. But they said he did provide invaluable strategic guidance working pro bono to formulate legal theories and coach them in moot court sessions.

Judge Roberts did not disclose his role in the case to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which asked about pro bono work in a questionnaire. News of his participation was first reported Thursday in The Los Angeles Times, and it set off an immediate scramble on both the left and the right, upending perceptions of the nominee in both camps.

The White House immediately sought to reassure Judge Roberts's conservative backers, telephoning prominent leaders, including Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, but it appeared that not all of them had been convinced.

The 1996 case, Romer v. Evans, is considered a touchstone in the culture wars, and it produced what the gay rights movement considers its most significant legal victory. By a 6-to-3 vote, the Supreme Court struck down a provision of the Colorado Constitution that nullified existing civil rights protections for gay men and lesbians and also barred the passage of new antidiscrimination laws.

"It's one more piece of the puzzle as we keep trying to find out who John Roberts is," said Kevin Cathcart, executive director of Lambda Legal, the advocacy group that helped bring the Romer case. "Where does this fit in on his judicial philosophy and his view of the Constitution?"







well well welly well ,,, well

now of course, just b/c a lawyer takes a case doesn't mean he agrees w/ his client, but if you were opposed to your opponents morally, why would you take the case?

AudioSavior

Theis could have been posted in the gay marriage thread. It is just going to spwan the same debate

Reilly

Hurrah! Another trap for Dak.

The guy's hopeless.

Give it time

Dr. Giganto

Because there's a lot of money and fame to be had

Jackie Pies

yeah, but say you're a jewish lawyer and a group of neonazis ask you to represent them, would you take it for the fame? depends on how self hating you were I guess, oh I'm joking.

but he didn't get any fame (no one knew about it and he didn't put it on his questionare he had to fill out when he became a nominee),,,,, and he worked pro bono, so no money came to him.

Dakstang

WC's Resident Redneck

I am not hopeless. I hope you are joking because you have been insulting me more and more lately what did I do to you?

Jackie Pies

s'not a trap, we'd been talking about gays lately and I read this thing called the news. you check out a paper or a paper's site and it tells you shit that happened, it's craziness.

Jackie Pies

so for when Ida gets confused, when I'm talking/posting, see, my picture shows up next to my words, my words do not show up next to a username that does not have my picture.
haha, oh I'm just joking w/ Ida.

AudioSavior

Lol, I don't know what was with me. Sorry bout that lol.

Jackie Pies

I just wanted to show you I wouldn't say that., alright, nevermind, dead thread.