Supreme
Court
nominee
John
G.
Roberts
Jr.
provided
significant
help
to
gay
activists
in
a
1996
landmark
Supreme
Court
case
protecting
gays
from
discrimination
based
upon
their
sexual
orientation,
the
Los
Angeles
Times
reported
Thursday.
At
the
time,
Roberts
was
a
lawyer
specializing
in
appellate
work
for
Hogan
&
Hartson,
a
large
D.C.-based
law
firm.
Walter
A.
Smith
Jr.,
then
head
of
the
pro
bono
department
of
the
firm,
told
the
paper
that
Roberts
didn't
hesitate.
"He
said,
'Let's
do
it.'
And
it's
illustrative
of
his
open-mindedness,
his
fair-mindedness.
He
did
a
brilliant
job."
Roberts
did
not
write
the
legal
briefs
or
argue
the
case
before
the
Supreme
Court,
but
he
was
instrumental
in
reviewing
filings
and
preparing
oral
arguments,
according
to
several
lawyers
intimately
involved
in
the
case,
reported
the
Los
Angeles
Times.
Jean
Dubofsky,
the
lead
lawyer
for
the
gay
rights
activists
in
the
case
that
Roberts
assisted,
Romer
vs.
Evans,
told
the
Los
Angeles
Times
that
Roberts
gave
her
advice
in
two
areas
that
were
"absolutely
critical."
In
that
decision,
the
court
overturned
a
Colorado
law
that
banned
cities
and
towns
within
the
state
form
adopting
ordinances
banning
discrimination
against
gays
in
employment,
housing
and
other
areas.
"He
said
you
have
to
be
able
to
count
and
know
where
your
votes
are
coming
from.
And
the
other
was
that
you
absolutely
have
to
be
on
top
of
why
and
where
and
how
the
state
court
had
ruled
in
this
case,"
Dubofsky
said.
Art
Leonard,
an
openly
gay
law
professor
at
New
York
Law
School
and
frequent
commentator
on
gay
legal
issues,
told
this
publication,
"…
I
think
it
is
possible
for
a
political
conservative
such
as
Roberts
to
have
deemed
it
worth
his
time
to
help
prepare
the
argument
in
Romer
because
the
concept
of
Amendment
2
was
offensive
to
him
on
general
grounds.
"There
is
certainly
a
difference
between
striking
down
laws
that
impose
second-class
citizenship
on
a
class
of
people
and
supporting
more
affirmative
rights
for
such
people,
and
I
don't
think
a
judge's
position
on
one
necessary
predicts
his
position
on
the
other.…"
Leonard
said,
"To
sum
up,
I
find
today's
news
report
comforting
to
the
extent
it
indicates
that
Roberts
is
not
reflexively
anti-gay
and
probably
holds
views
on
gay
issues
more
like
those
of
Justice
Kennedy
than
Chief
Justice
Rehnquist."
Gay
advocacy
groups
have
reacted
unethusiastically
to
the
revelation
of
Roberts'
assistance
in
Romer
vs.
Evans.
Matt
Foreman,
the
executive
director
of
the
National
Gay
&
Lesbian
Task
Force
told
this
publication,
"All
that
that
shows
is
that
he
is
a
good
lawyer,
it
has
nothing
to
do
with
his
conservative
ideology."
Kevin
Cathcart,
the
executive
director
of
Lambda
Legal
Education
&
Defense
Fund,
a
gay
legal
advocacy
group,
stated
in
a
news
release
Thursday,
"Lawyers
in
firms
are
often
called
on
to
play
roles
to
support
their
firm's
work;
the
work
is
routine
and
as
here,
often
goes
without
notice.
"This
information,
along
with
his
much
more
extensive
advocacy
of
positions
that
we
oppose
continues
to
raise
significant
questions
for
us."
But
in
an
interview
Thursay
afternoon
on
National
Public
Radio,
Smith
said
that
Roberts
was
under
no
obligation
to
assist
on
the
gay
rights
case
and
could
have
easily
declined
the
matter.
Lambda
Legal's
director
of
education
and
public
affairs,
Michael
Adams,
told
this
publication
that
the
story
in
the
Los
Angeles
Times
was
the
first
that
Lambda
had
heard
about
Roberts'
involvement
in
Romer
vs.
Evans.
Joe
Solomnese,
the
president
of
the
Human
Rights
Campaign,
a
gay
advocacy
goup,
also
remains
skeptical
of
Roberts.
"Judge
Roberts'
involvement
in
the
case
is
noteworthy,
but
his
participation
adds
little
to
our
understanding
of
how
he
would
vote
on
the
court,"
said
Solomnese
in
a
news
release.
"The
stakes
are
too
high
for
guessing
games
over
Judge
Roberts'
stance."
Documents
released
this
week
by
the
National
Archives
show
that
Judge
John
G.
Roberts
Jr.,
President
Bush’s
nominee
to
the
U.S.
Supreme
Court,
expressed
strong
objections
to
the
extent
that
the
high
court
has
recognized
a
citizen’s
fundamental
right
to
privacy.
According
to
the
Washington
Post,
the
documents
show
that
Roberts
drafted
an
article
for
then
Attorney
General
William
French
Smith
in
1981,
which
revealed
Roberts’
skepticism
of
the
Constitution’s
so-called
“right
to
privacy”
doctrine.
The
court
has
invoked
this
doctrine
in
a
number
of
landmark
cases,
including
the
2003
decision
in
Lawrence
vs.
Texas,
which
overturned
state
sodomy
laws.
“[T]he
broad
range
of
rights
which
are
now
alleged
to
be
‘fundamental’
by
litigants,
with
only
the
most
tenuous
connection
to
the
constitution,
bears
ample
witness
to
the
dangers
of
this
doctrine,”
Roberts
wrote
in
the
draft
article,
according
to
the
Post.
Roberts
added
a
quote
to
the
draft
from
a
dissenting
opinion
by
former
Supreme
Court
Justice
Hugo
Black
in
a
1965
decision,
in
which
Black
criticized
the
majority
on
the
court
for
overturning
a
Connecticut
law
banning
the
use
of
contraceptives,
the
Post
reported.
The
majority
opinion
overturning
the
law
used
“a
loose,
flexible,
uncontrolled
standard
for
holding
laws
unconstitutional,”
Roberts
approvingly
quoted
Black
as
saying.
The
newly
emerging
information
on
Roberts’
judicial
views
is
being
analyzed
by
gay
rights
...
