The Blue Voice

Friday, August 05, 2005

Judge Roberts and the CRWXtians are at Odds!

Have you been following the John Roberts nomination story? Hoooo boy!! This puppy just took a seriously fun turn. Guess what? The CRWXtians are all over the nomination like stink on turd blossoms!! Why? It appears Judge Roberts actually took part, pro bono, in the 1996 case of Romer v Evans where the Supreme Court in a 6 to 3 vote struck down a voter approved Colorado initiative set to allow employers and landlords to exclude gays and lesbians from jobs and housing.

Isn't it horrible that the highest court in our land felt it necessary to remind the State of Colorado that we live in a free country?? Personally, I find it morally reprehensible that Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas and Chief Justice Rehnquist somehow found the "huevos" to dissent. But then if I were to pick the three who would, those would be my choices. Scalia, writing the dissent stated:

"Today's opinion has no foundation in American constitutional law, and barely pretends to. The people of Colorado have adopted an entirely reasonable provision which does not even disfavor homosexuals in any substantive sense, but merely denies them preferential treatment. Amendment 2 is designed to prevent piecemeal deterioration of the sexual morality favored by a majority of Coloradans, and is not only an appropriate means to that legitimate end, but a means that Americans have employed before. Striking it down is an act, not of judicial judgment, but of political will. I dissent."

The fact that Judge Roberts helped overturn this obviously bigoted attitude is commendable. One could imagine the same dysfunctional reasoning being applied to racial discrimination.

First brought up by the LA Times on Wednesday and updated by the Times on Friday, the news has caused the religious right to take another long look at King George's recent High Court nomination. In fact, the White House is tripping all over itself to disclaim any real involvement by Judge Roberts in the aforementioned Supreme Court case, claiming that Robert's only put in about 10 hours on the case whereas he usually spends over 200 hours on pro bono cases. This argument, however, isn't growing wings as fast as the story is growing legs.

Jean Dubofsky, lead lawyer for the activists on the Colorado case, on the other hand, claims that Robert's advice on how to prepare arguments and set up mock trails was, "absolutely critical" to their win on the Supreme Court decision.

According to Fox News, Judge Roberts was working for the law firm of Hogan & Hartson. Apparently right wingers don't understand the concept of doing what you're asked to do by your bosses. Also, I doubt that 10 hours of pro bono work for an employer actually "proves" how one feels about gay rights.

But my question is, what's wrong with a judge who obviously understands what discrimination does to a democratic and free society? Judges are put in place not to defend an ideology, but to rule on issues of Constitutional justice that effect ALL Americans, not just the ones forming the majority.

If Judge Roberts can be the kind of Justice who can put aside personal issues for the good of the equal rights of all Americans, he will certainly be a decent replacement for Justice O'Connor.

posted at 8:06:00 PM by Marcia Ellen

| +Save/Share | |