In the ongoing campaign to find something that opposition to Roberts can use as a lever for public opinion, the latest buzz is that Roberts did some pro bono work on a Supreme Court gay rights case. They tried to get him on lipstick lobbying: didn't work. Tried to get him on Endangered Species Act: no one cared. So now this. Response seems to have been muted. Everything is muted. Roberts is muted. I had trouble getting up steam to write about this because it's all so muted. First the gist of the story.
Some time ago when Roberts was working at a big law firm (Hogan and Hartson), he was put to work on Romer vs. Evans, a case turning a Colorado law allowing homosexuality to be factored into decisions on housing and employment. Roberts didn't write briefs or make arguments, but he did give advice on what was likely to sway the justices, advice described as 'invaluable.' The NY Times has a fairly comprehensive piece. Rush Limbaugh, who sells Club Gitmo T-shirts and quacks like a duck, had this to say:
"There's no question this is going to upset people on the right. There's no question the people on the right are going to say: 'Wait a minute. Wait a minute! The guy is doing pro bono work and helping gay activists?'"
I have yet to find anyone that really seems all that concerned. Perhaps the people that are upset are hiding from me. Even the Family Research Council, which is Really Conservative, is saying that at second glance, it doesn't really mean much.
"Judge Roberts was an attorney with a large firm where helping colleagues when called upon was expected. Attorneys are not necessarily advocates or activists. In fact, activists are exactly what we don't want on the court. I spent the good part of yesterday on the phone and in meetings to get the facts. I have verified that his involvement was limited to about 5 hours of participation in a moot court as he played the role of one of the High Court's conservative members asking tough hypothetical questions of the attorneys who actually prepared and argued the case.
Article comments
1 - John Bambenek
There is nothing the media likes more than a hypocrit... they'll look for anything that might show Roberts to be one.
2 - Matthew T. Sussman
Google may have ruined journalism.
If you were to look up my 100 college columns, you'll find a discrepancy.
So much for my elected office chances.
3 - John Bambenek
Honest people have already long since been disuaded from politics...
Now we're stuck with two parties that ultimately are more concerned with robbing the treasury than policy.
4 - gregrocker
There is no one on the left who thinks Roberts will not be confirmed. We are instead relishing the pathetic hypocrisy on the gay issue which nowadays can be unearthed by just scratching any righties surface. Kinda like when the media did the most basic inquiry into Clinton's impeachment prosecutors and found that every single one of them was an adulterer. We got your number, wingnuts: You doth protest too much.
5 - gonzo marx
awww...c'mon..no one has anything on Roberts, because there is nothing to be "had" on him..he was/is the almost perfect "stealth" candidate...
look at his career...he has "punched his ticket" at all the correct neocon places, been a "good soldier" for the cause...iknows his "orders" and is not reaping the ultimate reward for doing such a fine job and keeping his head low...
i would bet that he gets confirmed with minimal fuss...it would take finding him in bed with a dead woman or a live boy, or both, to stop his confirmation
time will tell the wisdom of the pick, but i've got a really bad feeling about it...
just my one sixth billionths of the worlds opinion...
Excelsior!
6 - Temple Stark
As I've said before Roberts is a victory for both sides and a product of consultation. Hooray.
John, I think you misunderstand the media's role in these matters. It is to ask and rerlay other's questions, not necessarily to believe that every question they ask is worth an answer. But by asking, others may come up with previously unknown answers.
Please don't tell me you think roberts is getting a raw deal from "the media."
7 - gonzo marx
i don't think this one is a win for both sides by far..
only reason to do a stealth candidate is to bypass all the hoopla confirmation hearings will bring..
if we look at every other nomination/appointee form this Administration, you won't find a victory for even moderate positions
you can look forward to a neocon Justice for a long....long....long ...time
Excelsior!
8 - John Bambenek
I think looking in adoption records is dumb... all they'll find there is dirt on who gave the kids up. Divorce records, that'd be another story.
Funny, I always thought Clinton's impeachment had something to do with perjury... that's at least what the articles of impeachment said...
It is a remarkable political feat that his troubles were spun to be a matter of adultry instead of perjury. That I have to give the Clintons kudos for. It was brilliant.
9 - Temple Stark
You completely lost me on the Clinton references (and I probably don't need an explanation) Agree on adoption digging.
10 - Leoniceno
I don't think that Roberts participation in Romer v. Evans makes him a hypocrite, but I think that you're right that many on the right are making fools out of themselves. Even as we speak.
11 - -E
I wish I could remember where I read it.... But recently I read an article, from the left, about how they shouldn't settle for Roberts. I can't even remember the reasoning as to why (obviously it wasn't all that compelling). But there are some on the left, apparently, who think Roberts is still too far to the right.
The point is that there isn't anyone that can be nominated that will please everyone.
12 - CAGREENMAN
This adoption inquiry is necessary. As an adoptee the adoption of his kids stinks of an illegal adoption.
1. The Roberts were denied by several adoption agencies including Catholic Charities.
2. The children are from Ireland but adopted from Latin America.
3. The Roberts did not use any adoption agency they went through a private attorney and had a private adoption.
4. They adopted 2 children from 2 different woman who just "happened" to give up their children to latin america.
5. Latin america is known for money laundering and the adoption black market to get kids for people who have been declined
The reason the adoption of his kids is so important is that if John Roberts illegally adopted his kids would show that he has no regard for the law and should not be allowed to sit on the highest court. I personally think it is very relevent how he adopted two irish kids from latin america.
13 - Bob A. Booey
The gay rights case humanizes Roberts somewhat and gives me some hope that his intelligence might be matched by an undogmatic open-mindedness.
I strongly disagree with Temple's oh-so-moderate "win for both sides" claim, though. Roberts will be much more like his former mentor Rehnquist than O'Connor and if you care about abortion rights, environmental protections, or other critical issues, it'll be hard to say John Roberts was a "win for both sides" in a decade. Supreme Court Justices rarely are -- if he turns out to be another O'Connor, I doubt any conservatives will be claiming him as a "win."
The "costumed kids" commentary is funny, but I don't think they were weird-looking despite their 1950s Sunday church clothes. Ididn't know they were adopted. I suppose that's worth investigating, but I don't think it'll sink him unless something illegal was involved. I don't think Roberts will be another Zoe Baird.
That is all.
14 - Dave Nalle
>>The reason the adoption of his kids is so important is that if John Roberts illegally adopted his kids would show that he has no regard for the law and should not be allowed to sit on the highest court. I personally think it is very relevent how he adopted two irish kids from latin america.<<
Or it might mean that he wanted to take two kids out of a troubled environment and give them a good home where they would be loved.
Get out the lynching rope!
Dave
15 - Robert
Re: Adoption - I'm sure all you Conservative Robert's Supports would say EXACTLY THE SAME THING if this were a Clinton Nominee and had a somewhat dubious adoption.