Roberts Devoted Free Time to Liberal Cases

[Quixote1818]

WASHINGTON - Despite his view that death penalty appeals are clogging the courts, Supreme Court nominee John Roberts provided free legal help to an inmate languishing on Florida's death row for two decades.

The 25 hours of legal assistance that Roberts reported to the Senate Judiciary Committee are minuscule compared with thousands of hours contributed by dozens of other attorneys in the case of John Ferguson, who was convicted in 1978 of killing eight people in one of the worst mass murders in Florida history.

But Roberts' pro bono, or free, work as a lawyer at Washington's Hogan & Hartson — ranging from assisting welfare clients and gay rights activists to advising Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in the 2000 presidential election dispute — suggests a man who kept an open mind when assisting clients, supporters say.

Responding this week to a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire, Roberts cited cases involving minority voting rights, noise pollution at the Grand Canyon and environmental protection of Glacier Bay, Alaska.

Continued at:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050806/ap_on_go_su_co/roberts_pro_bono;_ylt=Aq7ERe2Y3kEFxTQF0dFFRIdp24cA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

[punpirate]

1. The next question to be asked is...

... how many of pro bono clients prevailed because of his expert legal help? It's also possible that one can look good by doing next to nothing.

And, why are his judicial opinions and his paid partisan Republican work so at odds with his volunteer work?

And, why won't the Bushies release his papers from Poppy Bush's administration?

More lily-gilding at work here, methinks.

[NoSheep]

2. I don't care what he signed his name to. If the BFEE want him-he's evil.

[wli]

3. no go, he's a Federalist Society Klansman

There's no way anyone should roll over and let this fascist in.

[Bucky]

4. He's Catholic, so of course he's not a Klansman. Duh.

Again with the juvenile name calling. I wonder if we can argue our side without dumbing down the debate or engaging in childish tantrums. Are you trying to make Democrats look bad, wli? Just asking.

Anyway, the main point is that Roberts did pro bono work for a liberal cause. Big woo. That means nothing. I'm sure Louis the XIV did a lot of favors for peasants when he threw coins to them out his carriage window. Pro bono work is a sign of noblesse oblige among these establishment Republican types.

Plus the welfare recipients he represented he represented in their claims against Clinton's welfare reform legislation. If you're looking for political cues, note that this "liberal cause" he was fighting for also included an attempt the undermine Clinton's welfare reform efforts--which included a lot of those job training programs that Republicans seem to dislike for some bizarre reason.

I'm not impressed. Roberts is still a personally decent, but ideological missionary whose accession to the top bench begins the clock ticking on the repeal of Row v Wade. I'm not impressed, but I'm afraid it's a little too late to stop this one.

[wli]

5. I use the moniker with some cause (justified? well, you raise questions)

For the quick answer, no, I'm not trying to make Democrats look bad. If I'm doing so, if you could beef up the argument on that specific point I will back off. I can be reasoned with, so putting forth a strong argument/etc. can, and if sufficiently compelling, will change my opinion and behavior.

The "Klansman" moniker describes his proven stance on civil rights issues (and the Federalist Society's overall as well). Inflammatory? Maybe. I've only got one or two complaints out of maybe 10 or 15 uses of the moniker, so I'm not entirely convinced it's inappropriate.

To more specifically explain why I think it's prudent to associate these kinds of stances and those who endorse them with racist organizations such as the KKK, I'll go on for a small bit longer. There has been something of an "incremental battle" to roll back civil rights protections, racial and other equity, and similar by Roberts and more generally by members of the Federalist Society. These are highly pernicious, have already had disastrous results, and are even now threatening to further corrupt the electoral process. The argument is not logical per se that demonstrates explicit membership in the KKK, but a matter of "drawing a line in the sand," or PR/marketing/etc. -oriented. Specifically, there is no one "conservative activist" we can point at that is advocating extreme change. Every step is incremental. This is not a "slippery slope argument," but rather the recognition of an obfuscation tactic. The presentation of the attack on minorities' civil liberties protection is always one of small, incremental change in the avoidance of controversy or creation of contrived controversies, such as those against Affirmative Action and the like. In this manner, I believe we have been deceived, and Roberts' and the Federalist Society's ascendancy within the judiciary represent a continuation of this tactic. So one approach to dealing with this is deliberately discarding the status quo as the standard against which they're judged, and instead taking the position that the repeal of protections against Jim Crow -style disenfranchisement is racially bigoted extremism, and to associate those who endorse such with well-recognized racist organizations. Hence, "Klansmen."

Anyhow, if this really is a disservice, I'd be much obliged for a fuller explanation so I can avoid doing such again. I for the moment believe it's a useful characterization, so demonstrating the counterproductivity of it (if it is indeed counterproductive) would help me avoid unintentionally undermining our cause.


P.S.: For the record, this is only the second objection I've heard to the "Klansman" moniker being ascribed to Roberts and/or the Federalist Society.

[Swamp Rat]

7. See post #6

:D

[wli]

8. I've heard a few people agree, I'm trying to hear out the rest

Thanks, though. :D

[Swamp Rat]

6. Nope! I ain't buyin' it.

:eyes: These fucking lizards will try ANYTHING! :eyes:

[bermudat]

9. Repugnantcans are playing us again.

All these trite news reports of Roberts helping out a gay group or providing legal services to liberal causes is a smokescreen. The BFEE wouldn't pick him unless they had him by the short hairs. Rove is leaking these stories so when the confirmation hearings come around, the repugnantcans can say he is a man of all people. The minute he gets confirmed, they will overturn Roe vs. Wade. I truly think bush would like that to be one of his legacies, besides being the first president since truman to use atomics on an enemy.