Current Action Alert ( sign up to receive AFA of PA Action Alerts
Education
Issues
Homosexual Agenda
What Our Investigation Revealed and Focus on the Family Actions' News Release
JOHN ROBERTS AND PRO
BONO INVOLVEMENT IN ROMER v. EVANS
John Roberts' involvement in this case demonstrates that, in a law firm
of several hundred lawyers, Roberts was always the "go to"
lawyer when it came to
U.S. Supreme Court cases and always was there for his colleagues.
• "John was building an appellate practice at our
firm. And he wanted to be able to have the freedom to bring cases into
the firm that were of interest to him. John therefore was open to being
helpful to other partners and their clients. Pretty standard for a big
law firm practice." Mr. David Leitch, Former Partner
with John Roberts at Hogan & Hartson (1987-1990, 1993-2001).
• Lawyers who worked with Judge Roberts at Hogan &
Hartson report that he had a policy of helping any time the pro bono
department asked. He probably
participated in over 100 moot courts for firm clients and at the firm's
request.
• "From my own experience as a Supreme Court
practitioner, it's no surprise that John Roberts would have been asked
to help with Supreme Court cases that
other colleagues had brought into the firm. And it certainly is not
uncommon to have to advance a legal position with which the lawyer might
not agree were he
the judge in the case." Kenneth W. Starr, Former U.S. Solicitor
General, Partner at Kirkland & Ellis, and Dean of Pepperdine School
of Law.
• The reason this case does not appear on Judge Roberts'
Senate questionnaire is because it was not his case and he provided very
minimal assistance amongst more than a dozen other lawyers who were on
the case.
This is not the first, and nor will it be the last, attempt to play a
phony game of "gotcha" by liberals and some in the media to
tarnish and embellish the
record of this outstanding nominee, undermine his support among those
who share his vision of judicial restraint, or extract Judge Roberts'
support on various liberal litmus test issues that could come before the
Supreme Court.
• As John Roberts said in a January 1982 article he
drafted for then Attorney General Smith: "Courts cannot, under the
guise of constitutional review,
restrike balances struck by the legislature or substitute their own
policy choices for those of elected officials. Two devices which
invite courts to do just that are 'fundamental rights' and 'suspect
class' review."
___________________________________________________________
Focus on the Family Action
8605 Explorer Drive
Colorado Springs, CO 80920
MEDIA Statement
Focus on the Family Action issued the following statement today (Aug. 4,
2005) regarding a Los Angeles Times report that Circuit Judge John
Roberts provided pro-bono legal counsel to advocates for special rights
for homosexuals in the 1996 case Romer v. Evans:
While this is certainly not welcome news to those of us who advocate for
traditional values, it is by no means a given that John Roberts'
personal views are reflected in his involvement in this case. At the
time of Romer v. Evans, Roberts was a private-practice attorney expected
by his firm to do pro-bono legal work. However, it is worth noting that
it was not Roberts who recommended taking on this case; his minimal
involvement was requested by a colleague, who served as the lead
attorney, because that colleague so respected Roberts' legal acumen.
That's what lawyers do -- represent their firm's clients, whether they
agree with what those clients stand for or not. Nothing we've read today
alters our belief that Judge Roberts deserves a fair hearing before the
Senate Judiciary Committee and a timely up-or-down confirmation vote in
the full Senate. We look forward to him being given the opportunity
during his hearing to discuss his role in the Romer case, and all of his
relevant experience, so that senators can make an informed decision on
his nomination.
###
Copyright 2002-2008 American Family Association of PA