[Mb-civic] The Real Roberts? - Richard Cohen - Washington Post

[William Swiggard]

The Real Roberts?

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, August 9, 2005; Page A17

John G. Roberts Jr. is out of the closet.

President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court, on the basis of the 
available evidence and all we know about human behavior, is not -- and I 
emphasize not ! -- a bigot. Specifically, he seems to harbor no 
prejudice against gay men and lesbians, who are, as we all know, 
anathema to social conservatives, who are anti-gay and pro-Bush, in 
about equal measures. Roberts, amazingly and inexplicably, seems to be a 
man of tolerance.

The evidence for this was the revelation by the Los Angles Times last 
week that Roberts volunteered his time on behalf of gay rights. As a 
partner in the prestigious Washington law firm of Hogan & Hartson, 
Roberts helped prepare lawyers who were challenging a Colorado law that 
specifically exempted gays from state anti-discrimination measures. In 
other words, a landlord or employer in Colorado could not have 
discriminated against blacks or Muslims or Asians or Jews or whites or 
greens or penguins, but could against gays. This odious exception to the 
law was eventually struck down by the Supreme Court, 6 to 3, in 1996. 
Roberts played a role.

According to the Times and others, Roberts helped develop the winning 
legal strategy and prepared Jean Dubofsky, the lead lawyer for the gay 
rights groups, for the tough questioning that might come her way -- 
especially from Justice Antonin Scalia. "Roberts was just terrifically 
helpful in meeting with me and spending some time on the issue," 
Dubofsky said. "He seemed to be very fair-minded and very astute."

<>He may even have endorsed her cause. Who knows? After all, Roberts was 
not compelled to volunteer his time. Hogan & Hartson encourages pro bono 
work, but it hardly compels its lawyers to take cases that they might 
find morally or politically repugnant. Clearly, a lawyer who, say, 
agreed with the likes of the Rev. Pat Robertson or Rep. Tom DeLay (Rev., 
Rep., it's all the same nowadays) would not have taken the case. What's 
more, there's evidence to suggest that Roberts knew what he was doing. 
He made no mention of the case in the 83 pages he submitted to the 
Senate outlining his finances, pro bono work and other matters of 
interest. He knows the political peril of tolerance.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/08/AR2005080801146.html?nav=hcmodule 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20050809/d9d77fdd/attachment.htm