It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by junglejake
So that justifies using the horrible loss of a multitude of people to promote your political agenda?
John Roberts Helped in Gay Rights Case
Supreme Court nominee John Roberts donated his time to work behind the scenes for gay rights activists – and helped win a decision that's been hailed as the "single most important positive ruling" for the gay rights movement.
Roberts was a lawyer specializing in appellate work in 1995 when he agreed to help represent the gay rights activists as part of his law firm's pro bono work.
He did not argue the case before the Supreme Court, but he was instrumental in reviewing filings and preparing oral arguments, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times.
"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," the newspaper reports.
Walter A. Smith, then head of the pro bono department at Roberts' law firm, Hogan & Hartson, asked for Roberts' help on the case and he agreed immediately. "It's illustrative of his open-mindedness, his fair-mindedness," said Smith. "He did a brilliant job."
The case before the Supreme Court, Romer vs. Evans, dealt with a voter-approved 1992 Colorado initiative that would have allowed employers and landlords to exclude gays from jobs and housing.
A 6-3 ruling striking down the initiative was handed down in May 1996.
Jean Dubofsky, lead lawyer for the gay rights activists, said Roberts' work in the case was "absolutely crucial."
Before examining how Roberts’s advocacy interest fared in such cases consider for a moment all of the hurdles an advocate must clear before even getting to make an argument before the Court. Of the tens of thousands of cases litigated annually in the lower courts, the Supreme Court reviews only about 100-120 a year. By the time the arguments advance to the Supreme Court they’ve gone through a torturous gauntlet of legal analyses. Most arguments that survive to be heard before the Court are taut and tempered. Yet 50 percent of these arguments must necessarily fail, regardless of how lucid, cogent or substantive they may be. Probabilities would suggest, therefore, that even if Roberts somehow slipped past the gatekeepers and got to make truly extremist civil rights arguments before the Court, it would reject virtually 100 percent of them, or at bare minimum, far more than 50 percent. Otherwise, the Court also would have to be labeled as out of the mainstream.
Roberts’s opponents should be stunned, then, to learn that the Court agreed with Roberts’s “extremist” civil rights positions 70 percent of the time.
The immediate reaction of some Roberts opponents might be to contend that this high percentage is inflated by the presence and influence of conservatives (read “fellow extremists”) on the Court such as Scalia and Thomas. But of the 13 justices before whom Roberts has argued 11 have agreed with his advocacy interest more than 50 percent of the time.
To be sure, of the current Supreme Court justices, those that agreed most often with Roberts’s advocacy interests were Rehnquist (74 percent of the time) Scalia (70 percent) Kennedy (70 percent) and Thomas (69 percent). Yet even liberals such as Ginsburg (60 percent) Stevens (57 percent) and Souter (57 percent) agreed with Roberts more than 50 percent of the time. (Note that not all of Roberts’s arguments in a given case were precisely adopted within the rationales of respective justice’s opinions. Nonetheless, the justices at the very least concurred with his general advocacy interest in the foregoing percentages.)
Organizations such as the NAACP, which last week declared that recently revealed documents indicate Roberts has “a longstanding hostility towards core NAACP civil rights priorities,” clearly must not be aware of the foregoing. Nor must they be aware of one additional fact: Thurgood Marshall, former chief counsel for the NAACP, lion of civil rights litigation and hero of Brown v. Board of Education, Sweatt v. Painter and Murray v. Pearson agreed with Roberts’s advocacy position 67 percent of the time — nearly the same as Scalia and Thomas and more than O’Connor, the justice who upon her retirement was praised as “moderate” by many of those now opposing Roberts.
Unless Roberts’s opponents are prepared to call Thurgood Marshall a civil-rights extremist they need to acknowledge that Roberts’s advocacy positions, as well as his judicial decisions are squarely within the mainstream.
This takes care of the women and the gays...both groups who are granted by the ignorance of the public a free pass to play on the basis of sex and sexual orientation. The public in this case being required to stand pat and let them play through ..by guilt ..and default.
Originally posted by orangetom1999
I am not aware that sex and sexual orientation or race is a civil right??? Please show me where it is a civil right and a pass to play through in the manner that the political machine in this country tries to use or misue it???
This is the arena where it is insulting to me and many Americans who can think outside the box.
Neither of you disputed the points I made about this device being used as a control device emotionally for votes.
Furthermore I do not dream of a nirvana... My view of events in this nation is chaos or "Ordo ob chao" Order from chaos. Chaos carefully cultivated for political reasons. This is not a new doctrine but goes back centurys. I dont agree with this view..I just know that this is what is happening.
"restoration of the true brotherhood."
It is the height of intelligent natural man..doing what he does best.
Originally posted by TrueLies
All I gotta say about this guy is that "he got devil eyes"
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
THERE WAS NO AD, people! You're arguing over nothing! See the update in the article!
And no, it's not justified. It's not justified on either side.