Saturday, August 06, 2005

John Roberts: Officially Okay By Me

I have waited to comment on Bush's nominee for SCOTUS until I could read up on him a bit.
After I read this snippet from The Los Angeles Times, I made my decision.

By Richard A. Serrano
Los Angeles Times

"WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court nominee John Roberts worked behind the scenes for a coalition of gay-rights activists, and his legal expertise helped them persuade the Supreme Court to issue a landmark 1996 ruling protecting people against discrimination because of their sexual orientation.

Then a lawyer specializing in appellate work, the conservative Roberts helped represent the gay activists as part of his law firm's pro bono work. While he did not write the legal briefs or argue the case before the Supreme Court, he was instrumental in reviewing the filings and preparing oral arguments, according to several lawyers involved in the case.

The coalition won its case, 6-3, in what gay activists described at the time as the movement's most important legal victory. The three dissenting justices were those to whom Roberts is frequently likened for their conservative ideology: Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Roberts' work on behalf of gay 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..."

Now, I realize Roberts is antiabortion, but there comes a time when I have to take a stand on my own interests and issues first- especially the gay ones.
While I support a breeder's right to choose, I have no uterus, not to mention I don't engage in pregnancy-making activities because I am gay.
Abortion is not my issue.
Besides, have the heterosexual, female pro-choice contingent ever come out in force to support my gay rights? I think not.
Queers are not their issue.

As such, Roberts has shown effectivity in supporting my gay rights, and because of that, I believe he can be a fair and legitimate justice.
When a large group of pro-choice activists throw their money and support behind equal rights for us non-breeding queers, I may change my mind and reactivate my *aggressive* opposition to these conservative busybodies who oppose a woman's right to choose. But for now, I am going to passively support pro-choice like many of their activists passively support gay rights.

One more upside to Roberts is, the story of his gay legal advocacy came out AFTER the conservatives and their pinheaded leader Bush embraced him as the great white conservative hope.
Now Bush has to face the facts that, as usual, he failed to get a clear understanding of who and what he was endorsing before he threw his support behind Roberts. And the conservatives who lauded Roberts as an excellent nominee also have some gay egg on their faces.
That's too fucking bad.
I say we queers get behind Roberts and urge the legislature to thrust him into joining the Supremes.
With an open minded Justice like Roberts has shown he can be, even the abortion-getting gals might catch a break.
And that's fine by me.
It may not be my issue, but I support their cause and invite them to support mine– a lot more vigorously than they have so far.


dusty said...

i would like to read the whole article unless that was it. This amazes me and also changes my stance a tad in the favor of mr.roberts.I find it amazing that he is such a right wing corporate suit but clearly can differentiate between giving his client the best representation possible and his own purient interests..i say bravo mr.roberts! excellent read Ms.Zipdrive..thanks

Karen Zipdrive said...

Dusty, It was from the Los Angeles Times. I believe you can find a link to the entire piece on John's AmericaBlog.

CLD said...

You do realize it was his law firm's choice at the time to do the pro bono work for the GLBT group; not Roberts', right? He did what he did because he had to -- his employer made him do his job.

This in no way or stretch of the imagination means he actively or secretly supports GLBT people or their rights. He certainly did not volunteer to do it, nor would he have, under normal circumstances.

He does not have my support, and does not fool me at all.

Karen Zipdrive said...

Chari, you make some very good points.
My point was, this nominee could be worse- and even when he was 'forced' to do pro bono work by his firm, the fact that he was able to contribute meaningfully to a successful outcome says something.
He could have dragged his feet and sabotaged his role in the case, but apparently he set his views aside and the gay group prevailed.
That to me indicates the potential for him to be at least a fair justice like GOP Sandra Day O'Connor was.
Considering Bush's track record for selecting the absolute worst cabinet in American history, his nominee for SCOTUS could have been much worse.
I don't give Roberts a glowing approval, I'm just thinking he might be the lesser of many, many evils.

Lulu Maude said...

Maybe this case is part of what the Bush Administration doesn't want the public to see!

I hope that Roberts will grow with the job. I am assuming he will be confirmed.

All the stuff about his "forgotten" membership in the Federalist Society still makes me nervous, but with Dubya we weren't likely to get anyone from the ACLU. I'm just glad he didn't give us Judge Roy Whatsisface and his big-ass Ten Commandments edifice.

Karen Zipdrive said...

Yeah, we could have been stuck with someone much worse, like Bork.

JimBob said...

This bit from the article is what puts me on my guard: zealously represent the interests of the client, whoever it might be...

The problem is that now, I'm afraid, the client may be the Republican party...