Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
QandO has Moved
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
So will Ted Kennedy Embrace Roberts now?
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, August 04, 2005

An interesting development in the 'outing' of Judge Roberts previous legal work:
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.
Seems to me, as I stated once before, that it is going to be almost impossible for anyone to take any sort of a campaign by the left to keep Roberts off the bench seriously. However, given the above information, I wonder what the reaction of the far-right (aka religious right) will be to this news?
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
While I’m not a member of the religious right, my first thought was "Like father, like son."

My second thought was appellate work is appellate work and what he argues for a client has no relation to what he thinks.

Since I don’t view President Bush as a conservative, I’ll always have my doubts over his Supreme Court picks; we’ll have to see how it turns out. Hopefully, I’ll be able to say that my doubts were misplaced.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
My second thought was appellate work is appellate work and what he argues for a client has no relation to what he thinks.

Precisely, which is the hidden point in all of this. Now, based on this work, its going to be harder for those on the left to make the point that his advocacy for overturning Roe v. Wade ws anything but that sort of advocacy.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Speaking as a Christian conservative, it doesn’t bother me at all. But then I’m prepared to support moves to take the question of SSM out of the hands of the Supreme Court (according to Constitutional principles), so even if I’m wrong about Roberts on this, it’s not the end of the world.

...because, in the end, this world really can’t be a Christian utopia. That’s what it says in the Bible (which I tend to take as, ahem, Gospel). In fact, the more someone tries to create Heaven on Earth, the worse things get for everyong (Calvin’s City of God in Switzerland, anyone?)

My whole goal in political discussion is just to make sure secularism/atheism and "titillation by carnal temptations" are not forced down people’s throats. If that makes any sense.
 
Written By: Nathan
URL: http://brain.mu.nu/
"secularism/atheism and "titillation by carnal temptations" are not forced down people’s throats"

too bad the founding fathers made it the law in the constitution that cant be now changed.


i would have to say that PRO BONO work isnt the same as work for paid clients. USUALLY pro bono is a choice for a lawyer and he takes up causes he believes in.

just a thought for the repubs. dismiss it if you will.

sincerely
Souter II
 
Written By: billy
URL: http://
"secularism/atheism and "titillation by carnal temptations" are not forced down people’s throats"

too bad the founding fathers made it the law in the constitution that cant be now changed.


i would have to say that PRO BONO work isnt the same as work for paid clients. USUALLY pro bono is a choice for a lawyer and he takes up causes he believes in.

just a thought for the repubs. dismiss it if you will.

sincerely
Souter II
 
Written By: billy
URL: http://
too bad the founding fathers made it the law in the constitution that cant be now changed.

I see that your understanding of the Constitution of the United States of America is matched by your apparent understanding of English capitalization rules.

 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Coulter is sounding more and more like a Cassandra every day.
 
Written By: Thomas J. Jackson
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider