Whatever it takes to get the Nomination

WASHINGTON (BP)--Supreme Court nominee John Roberts told senators Sept. 15 that although he provided pro bono work for homosexual groups in the landmark Romer v. Evans decision, he “probably” would have assisted the other side in the case if approached with that opportunity first.

Some social conservatives have expressed concern that Roberts donated several hours of work to assist homosexual groups in the 1996 case, in which the Supreme Court struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment that had prevented homosexuality from being given civil rights status. At the time Roberts was working as an attorney with a Washington law firm. (source)

I think it’s very telling that social conservatives were concerned that Judge Roberts assisted in the demise of an act that was extremely hateful and mean spirited at it’s core. They are talking about Colorado’s Amendment 2, which would have repealed anti-discrimination ordinances in several Colorado cities, and prohibit the passage of any such ordinances in the future. The amendment supported state-sanctioned discrimination based on sexual orientation and protects such discrimination from redress at local, county or state wide levels. If it had been upheld, it would have marked the first time a state constitutional amendment had revoked previously granted civil rights of a group of citizens. Fifty-four percent of Colorado’s voters approved the measure in 1992.

The Supreme Court said this about the amendment:

...the amendment has the peculiar property of imposing a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group, an exceptional and, as we shall explain, invalid form of legislation.

Amendment 2 confounds this normal process of judicial review. It is at once too narrow and too broad. It identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board. The resulting disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific protection from the law is unprecedented in our jurisprudence.

In layman’s terms, the amendment basically said that any business can fire you, for example, for being gay, even if you town or city doesn’t like it. Cities such as Boulder that had a local anti-discrimination policy in place would have that policy invalidated by the state-wide amendment. And furthermore, it would have made it illegal for any town or city to even seek to give any protections to gay citizens. Pretty nasty stuff.

But the real killer is this; if you were discriminated against by any means on the basis of your sexual orientation, you would have no legal means to address your grievances. In other words, you would be denied access to the legal system. That is what the Supreme Court had a problem with, and rightfully so.

And now, we have “social conservatives” who are concerned that Judge Roberts (or anyone for that matter) would stand up to that kind of horrible legislation? They should be ashamed of themselves.

The fact that Judge Roberts worked on this case made me give him the benefit of the doubt. I know he’s been labeled as being a wolf in sheep’s clothing, but I figured that he would at least be fair. I never thought that he particularly liked gay citizens. On a personal level, I’m quite certain he doesn’t. But, what I was after was his ability to be fair. So, when we do eventually come before the Supreme Court arguing for federal benefits that come with marriage, I would hope that he would at least listen to the arguments.

I’m not sure what to make of the comment that he “probably” would have assisted the other side in the case if approached with that opportunity first. Does that mean he would have personally preferred to fight against us, or was he just making that comment to settle down these social conservatives who were upset with him working to uphold basic rights for gay citizens?

Does it really matter? How much can you rely on someone to be objective if they state that they would have assisted the other side if approached with that opportunity first? I mean, doesn’t that show bias?

I suppose (if I’m being objective) that perhaps he was suggesting that he really didn’t care which side he represented. We’ll never know what he feels... until we are judged.