Skip to main content

View Diary: SCOTUS: Roberts Helped Pro-Gay Rights Coalition in Key Case (167 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Let me point out (4.00)
    We need to use common sense when it comes to talking about issues like this.  We don't want to have another "Dick Cheney's daughter" moment.  Too often, people react with glee by saying "this will drive the wingnuts crazy!" which allows those on the Right to seize the moral high ground simply by denying that they're bigoted.

    The proper way to talk about this is as David did:  Roberts did outstanding pro bono work on a key Supreme Court case.  Why would the Republicans try to hide this, when it's obviously something that would make him more acceptable to Democrats?  Why are they embarassed to bring it up?

    Don't focus on the work Roberts did, in other words.  Focus on the cover-up.

    •  Thanks (none)
      Thanks, Steve. As I say in the post, I'm actually very glad to see that Roberts did this work. A lot of people have held out hope that perhaps he might not be as conservative as the Bushies wish her were, and they offer tiny hints of evidence to support this hope. Of all the things we've seen so far, this is perhaps the best evidence that he might be slightly more moderate than we've been given reason to believe. And that's a very good thing.
      •  This takes us back (none)
        to the ju-jitsu approach, doesn't it?
      •  I'm not so sure about that (none)
        he might not be as conservative as the Bushies wish her were

        Doesnt Roberts contend that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution??

        IMHO that is enough to disqualify him.

        •  Roberts is no Kennedy (none)
          I agree. Someone suggested Roberts is more like Kennedy. Kennedy had a history of being lukewarm to equal rights for gays when he sat on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals siding against gay rights each time, but treating the subject with a level of respect that was uncommon for the time. This story of Roberts may make him seem like Kennedy in that regard, but Roberts appears to be much more conservative given his statements about privacy.

          Kennedy atleast appeared to acknowledged a right to privacy beyond the privacy rights circumscribed by the First, Third and Fourth Amendments in his confirmation when he made the statement "It seems to me that most Americans, most lawyers, most judges believe liberty includes protection of a value we know as privacy. There is a zone of liberty where a line is drawn where the individual can tell the government, 'Beyond this line, you may not go.' The great question is where to draw that line."

          Roberts, OTOH, goes so far as to approvingly quote Black's dissent in the Griswold case that recognized the right and established the modern footing for the right to privacy. That's not just pause for concern. That's justification, IMO, for voting no on Roberts.

    •  They wanted it out, no shame there. (none)
      They support the release, those partners would not have spoken on the record without approval from the Roberts team.  What lawyer is going piss off a supreme court justice for no reason?

      The Federalist Society membership is shameful to them.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site