Michael posted earlier about Roberts doing pro bono work for the gays in the pivotal case, Romer v. Evans. Not going over well amongst the theocrats. NY Times is reporting some of the right wing haters are just none too pleased by this development:
The White House immediately sought to reassure Judge Roberts's conservative backers, telephoning prominent leaders, including Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, but it appeared that not all of them had been convinced.Even the lard ass, drug addicted chickenhawk weighed in:
Even so, reports of his involvement echoed on conservative talk shows Thursday, generating outrage and disbelief. "There's no question this is going to upset people on the right," Rush Limbaugh told his radio listeners. "There's no question the people on the right are going to say: 'Wait a minute. Wait a minute! The guy is doing pro bono work and helping gay activists?' "Okay, so we know the White House was in semi-crisis mode, trying to put the best spin on the situation. But, try as they will, this is the passage that is going to reverberate with the theocrats:
Walter A. Smith, who was in charge of pro bono work at Hogan & Hartson from 1993 to 1997, and who worked extensively on the Romer case, said about a dozen lawyers at the firm assisted. He said he had little trouble recruiting Judge Roberts.Uh-oh, Roberts might not have been offended enough by gays not to work on the case. Man, the right wingers are really going to hate that.
"It looked like a challenging, interesting, provocative, important case," said Mr. Smith, who is now the executive director of the D. C. Appleseed Center, a nonpartisan public interest legal group. "Everybody knew that, and I think he believed it was worth his time."
Mr. Smith said part of his job was to match lawyers with cases that would intrigue them, and that his initial instinct was that Judge Roberts would be willing, despite his conservative bent. In the past, Judge Roberts has made it a point to note that lawyers do not always agree with their clients.
"Every good lawyer knows that if there is something in his client's cause that so personally offends you, morally, religiously, if it so offends you that you think it would undermine your ability to do your duty as a lawyer, then you shouldn't take it on, and John wouldn't have," he said. "So at a minimum he had no concerns that would rise to that level."
It's not enough that Roberts has issues with the constitutional right to privacy. No he's not a confirmed gay basher.
The GOP litmus test extends beyond overturning Roe v. Wade. You have to really, really hate the homos. I hope Sam Brownback is preparing his questions for Roberts on this subject.
