August 5, 2005

TOO GOOD A LAWYER:

Court Nominee Advised Group on Gay Rights (SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK, 8/05/05, NY Times)

Judge John G. Roberts Jr., the Supreme Court nominee, gave advice to advocates for gay rights a decade ago, helping them win a landmark 1996 ruling protecting gay men and lesbians from state-sanctioned discrimination.

Judge Roberts, at the time an appellate lawyer for the Washington firm of Hogan & Hartson, did not write legal briefs or argue the case, lawyers involved said. But they said he did provide invaluable strategic guidance working pro bono to formulate legal theories and coach them in moot court sessions. [...]

The lead plaintiffs' lawyer in the Romer case, Jean Dubofsky, said Thursday that she sought out Judge Roberts at the recommendation of Walter Dellinger, then a senior official in the Justice Department under President Bill Clinton. Ms. Dubofsky, a former justice of the Colorado Supreme Court, said she was specifically seeking a conservative who could provide her an insider's road map, of sorts, helping her to anticipate objections from some of the court's more conservative members, like Justice Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.

Judge Roberts, who once clerked for Justice Rehnquist and now serves on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, spent about six hours on the case, Ms. Dubofsky said. "He told me, 'You have to know how to count and to get five votes, you're going to have to pick up the middle.' "

And then, she said, Judge Roberts provided explicit instructions on how to do just that, telling her that she would have to prove to the court it did not have to overturn a previous case, Bowers v. Hardwick, which upheld a ban on homosexual sodomy. He peppered her with questions in a moot court session.

"So when I was asked by Justice Scalia if they would have to overturn Bowers v. Hardwick to rule my way, I said no," Ms. Dubofsky said, adding, "In this particular case if you wanted to get the U.S. Supreme Court turned around on gay rights issues, you didn't have to win every gay rights case floating around out there."

Ultimately, in a forceful opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the court said the Colorado provision had put the state's gay men and lesbians in a "solitary class," singling them out in violation of the Constitution's equal protection guarantee in a manner that was so sweeping as to be inexplicable on any basis other than animus. Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the justices to whom Judge Roberts is most often compared, issued a blistering dissent.


It'd be interesting to hear Mr. Roberts explain how he thinks Bowers can be reconciled with Romer--the Court couldn't.

Posted by Orrin Judd at August 5, 2005 10:26 AM
Comments

A very interesting strategy is being pursued by the left here--since they haven't found anything to go after him for being a scary, arch-conservative loony, they're trying to undermine his support on the right. It seems that if anything, this is only going to make Bush's future nominees have to have even more solid conservative credentials, since the next vacancy will probably occur before Roberts can prove he's no Souter...

Posted by: b at August 5, 2005 11:12 AM

Not being a lawyer, I may be completely wrong here, but I thought it was a given that the personal opinions, religious fervor and/or political leanings of a particular judge or lawyer or prosecutor were not supposed to be reflected in their legal opinions or rulings.

Court cases must be adjudicated according to the law or so I thought, so Roberts writings may be contrary to his own personal views on this or any other legal case.

Posted by: erp at August 5, 2005 12:29 PM

I'd agree with erp, perhaps he doesn't think they can be reconciled, but was asked for help in this case and gave it. He knows how to argue before the court, so he should know how to argue amongst the justices, but its still really hard I think to peg how he would rule. The assumption he'd resemble a scalia-esque conservative seems plausible if only because that is what Bush said he was looking for.

Posted by: Scof at August 5, 2005 1:49 PM

Interesting that his most profound advice to a liberal appellant was not to try to persuade Scalia or Thomas but to appeal to the moderates.

Obviously the Court is responsible for its ruling, not a lawyer who gave moot court advice to a lawyer in the case. Pretty hard to see why conservatives would look down on Roberts for helping his liberal colleagues. Cooperativeness is a conservative virtue.

Posted by: pj at August 5, 2005 2:12 PM

pj: The thing is that the left doesn't understand conservative in the slightest (certaintly less so than conservatives understand the left!). Remember how for a few days they thought that the right would turn on Bush for the taped conversations where he said he wouldn't attack homosexuals, because they thought that somehow this contradicts his anti-SS-marriage position?

Posted by: b at August 5, 2005 2:22 PM

Its very interesting. The Left is trying to discredit Roberts by sapping his right-leaning support.

Ann Coulter is trying to support Roberts by feigning right-leaning objections.

Posted by: AML at August 5, 2005 4:28 PM
« MONA LISA WAS A MAN: | Main | REVVIN' UP: »