Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Most likely Roberts (none)
    took this case in order to prove that he can support a non-conservative cause, so it would help him later  when he would be nominated in the future.

    I still think he is an extreme bigoted right-winger.

    •  If that's the case, (none)
      it's odd he didn't mention it in the papers he gave the Senate.
      •  Well sure (none)
        Roberts wanted it to come out at about the same time that his statements that he believes that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution comes out.  Probably very well planned, and there is probably more of this stuff coming at the appropriate spot.  I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few more cases which he was a lawyer for the liberal side to show his "open-mindedness".  A total opportunist, mind you.  

        One thing is sure to me, Roberts is smart as hell, and he planned his career awfully well to defend himself against every accusation.  And he is going to hide his extreme right-wing views and has a defense or a lie ready for any and every accusation that we are going to make.  (This is something he learned from the failure of the Bork nomination.)
        Roberts deep down positions will only come when he is on the Supreme Court, and even then I don't expect any Scalia-type rhetoric, simply business style opinions which are very harsh in substance, but not wording.  Roberts has no need to trash gays with words, he will do so with his opinions.

        •  But those statements (none)
          weren't getting any coverage in the press, and the Democrats didn't seem to move closer to filibustering him.

          We don't know if he is anti-gay, but if he was that much of a bigot, then he never would have helped with this case. That was 10 years ago and he had no idea who would get elected in '96 or '00.

          •  yes, however (none)
            Roberts knew that he would be the prime contender for a seat on the Court of Appeals with the election of the first Rethug.  Why?  He had been nominated in 1992 for the seat and the Dems blocked him then.  So it is clear that he would be owed first.
            And once he is on the DC Court of Appeals, he immediately is on the short list for the Supreme Court.
            And the Dems blocked him again in 2001, and it was only in 2003 he was finally confirmed.

            With regard to his anti-privacy statements, Roberts knew that he made them, and that they would come out, so he needed stuff to counteract them.  Showing that is not against equal rights for gays and lesbian would be one way.

            Roberts is a smart SOB.  As I've said before, he is a business class bigot, not a bellowing Jerry Falwell type.  Scalia is the latter.

    •  theory (none)
      So, your theory is that in 1996, while Bill Clinton was walking all over Bob Dole, Roberts was thinking so hard that he wanted to be a Supreme Court nominee that ever decision about pro-bono work was all made with that in mind?

      --some notes
      a)  It sounds like he was assisting a junior attorney in the firm.
      b)  Since this case was going to the Supreme Court, it makes sense that the firm would want to look good in such a high profile case.  Presenting a strong case before the Supreme Court would be good for the firm, no matter the particulars of the case.
      c)  Some conservatives really believe in limits to the state.  Its conceiveable that Roberts is the sort of conservative who might believe that the state should not be interfering in the private lives of citizens.... ie, he can be a conservative and not be a believer in the American Taliban type of religous conservatism.

      •  Yes it look like it (none)
        "So, your theory is that in 1996, while Bill Clinton was walking all over Bob Dole, Roberts was thinking so hard that he wanted to be a Supreme Court nominee that ever decision about pro-bono work was all made with that in mind?"

        Roberts had the future in mind, i.e. 2000 or even 2004.  Read what I said upthread in response to JamesB3.  

        "Some conservatives really believe in limits to the state.  Its conceiveable that Roberts is the sort of conservative who might believe that the state should not be interfering in the private lives of citizens.... ie, he can be a conservative and not be a believer in the American Taliban type of religous conservatism."

        There are some who are.  I just don't believe Roberts is one of them.  He is both a corporatist and a theocrat, and a police state fascist as well.  This guy may well be the most right-wing justice to ever sit on the SCOTUS.

      •  One more thing (none)
        Your statement (b) fits very much with one thing John Roberts believes in, being professional.  he puts out a very professional image, but this doesn't prevent him from being an extreme right-winger, a theocrat, or a bigot.  It just means that you will never hear Roberts ever express publicly those sentiments.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site