NationStates Jolt Archive

:)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20050804/ts_latimes/robertsdonatedhelptogayrightscase

"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."

---

Hmmm.... is he really the conservative some want to paint himself as? I'd like to know more about him.

---

Jean Dubofsky, lead lawyer for the gay rights activists and a former Colorado Supreme Court justice, said that when she came to Washington to prepare for the U.S. Supreme Court presentation, she immediately was referred to Roberts.

"Everybody said Roberts was one of the people I should talk to," Dubofsky said. "He has a better idea on how to make an effective argument to a court that is pretty conservative and hasn't been very receptive to gay rights."

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.

"John Roberts … was just terrifically helpful in meeting with me and spending some time on the issue," she said. "He seemed to be very fair-minded and very astute."

Can we get one thing straight? (No pun intended ;) (Sorry, had to))

Are you or are you not a Republican?

Can we get one thing straight? (No pun intended ;) (Sorry, had to))

Are you or are you not a Republican?

I'm registered as non-partisan.

I'm registered as non-partisan.

Oh. Then did you vote Bush? I remember you defending him at one point...

As for Roberts; I think it's great that he only acts on the behalf of his client's wishes. He seems to me to be very fair minded. He sees the role of justices the same way I do; limited, as in, no legislation from the bench. I think he's a good nominee, the best the democrats could hope for, anyway.

Oh. Then did you vote Bush? I remember you defending him at one point...

As for Roberts; I think it's great that he only acts on the behalf of his client's wishes. He seems to me to be very fair minded. He sees the role of justices the same way I do; limited, as in, no legislation from the bench. I think he's a good nominee, the best the democrats could hope for, anyway.

I don't agree with Bush all the time, but yes I have defended him sometimes.

Roberts just seems to be more of the right person and this is starting to show. Very fair minded and he has even offered his advice for gay rights.

I don't agree with Bush all the time, but yes I have defended him sometimes.

Roberts just seems to be more of the right person and this is starting to show. Very fair minded and he has even offered his advice for gay rights.

Gay rights/ Marriage is something I'm against personally but indifferent to politically.

I'd like the government to get out of marriage altogether.

I support Gay rights.

I just don't want homosexuals getting married. Have civil unions, call them whatever.

Frankly, I'd like the government to get out of marriage altogether.

Well since the government is already involved in marriage, there is no reason for homosexuals not to get married.

Well that's good.

He won't overthrow abortion, he won't bash gays from the bench... I think the conservatives have picked a moderate monster that they can't control!
Awesome.

What I'm most interested in is how the far-right of the Republican party reacts to this. I think it's a bit foolish to try to read anything into his work as an advocate, personally, and I'm pragmatic enough to think that he'll probably get in no matter what the Democrats do, but still, the far-right has been waiting for this moment. This is payback for them, supposedly, and now it looks like Roberts doesn't hate gay people the way they think he ought to.

I wonder how many phone calls the White House is getting from Dobsonites and 700 Club watchers and Moral Majoritiers (is that a word?)? Or how many they will get when the right-wing bloggers get started on him. Will one of the nutjob right-wing Senators put a hold on him--Santorum, Brownback, Coburn, Inhofe, etc.? Will Frist try to get back into the good graces of the right after he sold them out on stem cells by questioning Roberts on this? Or will they all get in line like good little Republicans and put him on the Court?

This is turning into far more of a soap opera than I'd ever hoped for.

:fluffle: (This is a gay fluffle in honor of the thread.)

:fluffle: (This is a gay fluffle in honor of the thread.)

All fluffles are gay, silly!

All fluffles are gay, silly!
Silly me. :D

Well I'm just glad Roberts is more moderate then I thought he was.

Well I'm just glad Roberts is more moderate then I thought he was.

Don't get your hopes up. An isolated event does not a tendency make. It's hard not to hope for your sakes, though...

Don't get your hopes up. An isolated event does not a tendency make. It's hard not to hope for your sakes, though...

Actually I support Roberts and I always he has. He is a very level headed person, and I have heard many people say this about him who have worked with him (on the news, on the internet, etc). A very good choice I think.

Actually I support Roberts and I always he has. He is a very level headed person, and I have heard many people say this about him who have worked with him (on the news, on the internet, etc). A very good choice I think.

Thomas what's-his-name (the black fellow, his name really does escape me at the moment) was depicted in a similar fashion, IIRC, but look where that turned out - a Scalia clone. :rolleyes:

Thomas what's-his-name (the black fellow, his name really does escape me at the moment) was depicted in a similar fashion, IIRC, but look where that turned out - a Scalia clone. :rolleyes:

Uh, O'Connor was depicted as a conservative. She didn't turn out to be one. I have a feeling Roberts won't be a conservative either.

Uh, O'Connor was depicted as a conservative. She didn't turn out to be one. I have a feeling Roberts won't be a conservative either.

As I said, for your sake, I hope you're right.

As I said, for your sake, I hope you're right.

For my sake? Don't try to tell me what is better for me. Roberts was one of the best choices Bush could of gone for, and I've seen plenty of people agree (even democrats).

For my sake? Don't try to tell me what is better for me. Roberts was one of the best choices Bush could of gone for, and I've seen plenty of people agree (even democrats).

You argue for gay rights, which leads me to believe that they are quite important to you. A conservative judge will be a serious threat to those; remember, all the conservative ones voted for keeping your country's shameful sodomy laws in place.

Uh, O'Connor was depicted as a conservative. She didn't turn out to be one. I have a feeling Roberts won't be a conservative either.All depends on your frame of reference--in my opinion, O'Connor was conservative through and through, but not whackjob conservative like Scalia and Thomas. To people who think Scalia is mainstream, O'Connor is liberal and Ginsberg is like, I don't know, Stalin's wife or something.

You argue for gay rights, which leads me to believe that they are quite important to you. A conservative judge will be a serious threat to those; remember, all the conservative ones voted for keeping your country's shameful sodomy laws in place.

It depends on what you think conservative or liberal is. Also look at my other views. I'm not a single issue voter.

It depends on what you think conservative or liberal is. Also look at my other views. I'm not a single issue voter.

This is a thread about Roberts' action in a social matter. Thus being a thread about his social conservatism/liberalism, and also one of the few occasions American and European concepts of the conservative/liberal coincide. All your politicians are otherwise conservative on a European scale, thankfully for us.

This is a thread about Roberts' action in a social matter. Thus being a thread about his social conservatism/liberalism, and also one of the few occasions American and European concepts of the conservative/liberal coincide. All your politicians are otherwise conservative on a European scale, thankfully for us.

Nice try on trying to hijack this thread.

It depends on what you think conservative or liberal is. Also look at my other views. I'm not a single issue voter.
That's all well and good--seriously, I'm not a single issue voter either--but then again, I'm not part of a group that a significant portion of this country, almost all located within the Republican party, would rather didn't exist. (Well, okay, I'm a liberal, but that's still not the same as being gay.) I mean, it seems to me, and I'm not exaggerating here, that any gay person who supports the Republican party in its current form is allied with people who would just as soon put him in jail as look at him. How do you reconcile that? I'm seriously curious, as I've never actually met someone in your position.

Nice try on trying to hijack this thread.

What is the thread about, if not his stance on liberal issues, then? You may want to rethink why you used the article you used to start this thread, otherwise.

That's all well and good--seriously, I'm not a single issue voter either--but then again, I'm not part of a group that a significant portion of this country, almost all located within the Republican party, would rather didn't exist. (Well, okay, I'm a liberal, but that's still not the same as being gay.) I mean, it seems to me, and I'm not exaggerating here, that any gay person who supports the Republican party in its current form is allied with people who would just as soon put him in jail as look at him. How do you reconcile that? I'm seriously curious, as I've never actually met someone in your position.

I know your views as I've seen your posting and I think you don't have any credibility to question me. I'm not even registered to any political party. You just don't have any credibility because you are far too biased.

I know your views as I've seen your posting and I think you don't have any credibility to question me. I'm not even registered to any political party. You just don't have any credibility because you are far too biased.

Here come the personal attacks. This thread is over, as far as I'm concerned.

Here come the personal attacks. This thread is over, as far as I'm concerned.

Personal attacks? What personal attacks?

I'm just saying he has no right to attack me the way he did... he questioned the very basis of my beliefs. I'm not republican. I vote both ways (I voted for Antonio Villaraigosa in LA's mayor race). I'm just tired of people saying.. well you have to be liberal if you are gay. I'm sick and tired of it.

I know your views as I've seen your posting and I think you don't have any credibility to question me. I'm not even registered to any political party. You just don't have any credibility because you are far too biased.
Dude--I'm not attacking. I'm seriously curious and I swear I'm not going to try to blast you for your views on this subject. I've never had the chance to talk to a gay person who supports, even occasionally, the Republican party. Maybe I've been sheltered--who knows--but I haven't. But you have to admit that a significant portion of the current Republican party is more than homophobic--they're anti-gay. So how do you reconcile your support for whatever political views you support with the fact that so much of the party would rather you didn't exist?

Personal attacks? What personal attacks?

I'm just saying he has no right to attack me the way he did... he questioned the very basis of my beliefs. I'm not republican. I vote both ways (I voted for Antonio Villaraigosa in LA's mayor race). I'm just tired of people saying.. well you have to be liberal if you are gay. I'm sick and tired of it.

That's true.

What was your Political compass score?

Dude--I'm not attacking. I'm seriously curious and I swear I'm not going to try to blast you for your views on this subject. I've never had the chance to talk to a gay person who supports, even occasionally, the Republican party. Maybe I've been sheltered--who knows--but I haven't. But you have to admit that a significant portion of the current Republican party is more than homophobic--they're anti-gay. So how do you reconcile your support for whatever political views you support with the fact that so much of the party would rather you didn't exist?

Read my previous post. You never had the chance because you surround yourself with people who think like you. A significiant portion of the current Republican party is anti-gay? No I don't agree. I don't reconcile anything. So enough with you. You don't know what you are talking about.

That's true.

What was your Political compass score?

It is in my signature.

It is in my signature.

Can't see sigs unless I'm logged out.

That's all well and good--seriously, I'm not a single issue voter either--but then again, I'm not part of a group that a significant portion of this country, almost all located within the Republican party, would rather didn't exist. (Well, okay, I'm a liberal, but that's still not the same as being gay.) I mean, it seems to me, and I'm not exaggerating here, that any gay person who supports the Republican party in its current form is allied with people who would just as soon put him in jail as look at him. How do you reconcile that? I'm seriously curious, as I've never actually met someone in your position.

And where do you get this information - other than from the vast library of your imagination...
Really, you seem to have the same disease that Rusk Limbaugh and Ann Coulter suffer from - the inability to distinguish the extreme from the moderate. There is a considerable difference between far right and conservative. Those who believe in the conservative application of government are as varied a people as anyone else. Apparently you've never heard of the Log Cabin Republicans.

And where do you get this information - other than from the vast library of your imagination...
Really, you seem to have the same disease that Rusk Limbaugh and Ann Coulter suffer from - the inability to distinguish the extreme from the moderate. There is a considerable difference between far right and conservative. Those who believe in the conservative application of government are as varied a people as anyone else. Apparently you've never heard of the Log Cabin Republicans.

Wow. Thanks for defending me... I thought you would never...

www.logcabin.org

Read my previous post. You never had the chance because you surround yourself with people who think like you. A significiant portion of the current Republican party is anti-gay? No I don't agree. I don't reconcile anything. So enough with you. You don't know what you are talking about.
For the record, in the mid-90s I was a ditto-head. In 1996, I voted for the Libertarian candidate for President. By 2000 I was a moderate Democrat and now I'm a pretty partisan liberal, so yes, I know the other side of the equation, and if you think that the Dobsonites and the people in those 11 states that had gay-marriage bills who came out and simultaneously voted for Bush don't make up a significant part of the current Republican party, then you're fooling yourself. I know whereof I speak on this matter--the numbers don't lie.

But you'll discover it for yourself, I imagine, if you're willing to look at the tough reality of it. The traditional, pro-business social libertarian Republicans don't give a shit who you sleep with. The right-wing psychos who are running the party these days do, and they'd throw you in jail if they had the chance.

And where do you get this information - other than from the vast library of your imagination...
Really, you seem to have the same disease that Rusk Limbaugh and Ann Coulter suffer from - the inability to distinguish the extreme from the moderate. There is a considerable difference between far right and conservative. Those who believe in the conservative application of government are as varied a people as anyone else. Apparently you've never heard of the Log Cabin Republicans.
I have heard of the Log Cabin Republicans, dumbass--they make up about 8% of the gay voting populace--and I've never met one. Is that so fucking hard to believe? Lots of gay friends, but no Log Cabin Republicans. Next you're going to tell me that the religious right only makes up about a tenth of your voters, right? Give me a fucking break.

For the record, in the mid-90s I was a ditto-head. In 1996, I voted for the Libertarian candidate for President. By 2000 I was a moderate Democrat and now I'm a pretty partisan liberal, so yes, I know the other side of the equation, and if you think that the Dobsonites and the people in those 11 states that had gay-marriage bills who came out and simultaneously voted for Bush don't make up a significant part of the current Republican party, then you're fooling yourself. I know whereof I speak on this matter--the numbers don't lie.

Your issue is you only see two sides: liberal. conservative. That's my not my fault you cannot see past that. And you know what? You don't even have the slightest idea where I stand. And yes I don't think you are speaking the truth, because plenty of democrats are against gay marriage too.

But you'll discover it for yourself, I imagine, if you're willing to look at the tough reality of it. The traditional, pro-business social libertarian Republicans don't give a shit who you sleep with. The right-wing psychos who are running the party these days do, and they'd throw you in jail if they had the chance.

You are the one who needs to get back into touch with reality. The right wing psychos who are running the party these days? You again are talking about a reality you want, not what is actually the truth. And they'd throw you in jail if they had the chance? Now you are arguing on strawmans. Leave this thread, please.

If you choose to argue with me I'll post a complaint in the moderation forum for closure of this thread.

You are the one who needs to get back into touch with reality. The right wing psychos who are running the party these days? You again are talking about a reality you want, not what is actually the truth. And they'd throw you in jail if they had the chance? Now you are arguing on strawmans. Leave this thread, please.

If you choose to argue with me I'll post a complaint in the moderation forum for closure of this thread.
Whatever, dude--I hoped to have a reasonable conversation with you on this, but I guess you don't want to.

As to the leadership of the Republican party:

George W. Bush--evangelical christian, asked Congress to pass a federal marriage amendment.

Bill Frist--Senate Majority Leader--said on This Week with George Stephanopolous that he wasn't sure whether or not people could pass AIDS to other people through sweat or kissing, also supported the federal marriage amendment.

Rick Santorum--number three man in the Senate, compared homosexuality to bestiality, blamed sexual licentiousness for the Catholic Church's sexual abuse scandals in Boston.

Tom DeLay--House Majority Leader--wants the US to become a theocratic nation, including bans on homosexuality.

And that's just the leadership. If I go down the line, they get really nutty. Hell, I could write a page just on Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. So live blindly if you must--it'll slap you in the face one day.

Whatever, dude--I hoped to have a reasonable conversation with you on this, but I guess you don't want to.

As to the leadership of the Republican party:

George W. Bush--evangelical christian, asked Congress to pass a federal marriage amendment.

Bill Frist--Senate Majority Leader--said on This Week with George Stephanopolous that he wasn't sure whether or not people could pass AIDS to other people through sweat or kissing, also supported the federal marriage amendment.

Rick Santorum--number three man in the Senate, compared homosexuality to bestiality, blamed sexual licentiousness for the Catholic Church's sexual abuse scandals in Boston.

Tom DeLay--House Majority Leader--wants the US to become a theocratic nation, including bans on homosexuality.

And that's just the leadership. If I go down the line, they get really nutty. Hell, I could write a page just on Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. So live blindly if you must--it'll slap you in the face one day.

You are far from reasonable. You are the most unreasonable person I have dealt with here, and even moreso then the christian conservatives. I will now post a complaint in the moderation.

Most democrats are against gay marriage too.

Whatever, dude--I hoped to have a reasonable conversation with you on this, but I guess you don't want to.

As to the leadership of the Republican party:

George W. Bush--evangelical christian, asked Congress to pass a federal marriage amendment.

Bill Frist--Senate Majority Leader--said on This Week with George Stephanopolous that he wasn't sure whether or not people could pass AIDS to other people through sweat or kissing, also supported the federal marriage amendment.

Rick Santorum--number three man in the Senate, compared homosexuality to bestiality, blamed sexual licentiousness for the Catholic Church's sexual abuse scandals in Boston.

Tom DeLay--House Majority Leader--wants the US to become a theocratic nation, including bans on homosexuality.

And that's just the leadership. If I go down the line, they get really nutty. Hell, I could write a page just on Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. So live blindly if you must--it'll slap you in the face one day.


Wait, did a liberal just call someone else nutty? :p

I have heard of the Log Cabin Republicans, dumbass--they make up about 8% of the gay voting populace--and I've never met one. Is that so fucking hard to believe? Lots of gay friends, but no Log Cabin Republicans. Next you're going to tell me that the religious right only makes up about a tenth of your voters, right? Give me a fucking break.

Calling someone a 'dumbass' is a bad move.
The Nazz: Official Warning for Flaming

And where do you get this information - other than from the vast library of your imagination...
Really, you seem to have the same disease that Rusk Limbaugh and Ann Coulter suffer from - the inability to distinguish the extreme from the moderate. There is a considerable difference between far right and conservative. Those who believe in the conservative application of government are as varied a people as anyone else. Apparently you've never heard of the Log Cabin Republicans.

Purposely mocking The Nazz's opinion, and criticizing him for his opinion, by telling him that he has a 'disease' constitutes as flamebaiting, B0zzy.

B0zzy: Official Warning for Flamebaiting

~The Modified Freedom Forces of Euroslavia
Nationstates Forum Moderator~

Well I'm just glad Roberts is more moderate then I thought he was.
Actually, he isn't really moderate when it comes to his personal politics. When it comes to his JOB however, he actually does the job how he's supposed to do it.