Conservatives Wonder About Roberts' Role in Romer Ruling

by Bill Fancher and Jody Brown
August 8, 2005

(AgapePress) - Pro-family reaction is mixed to last week's revelation in the Los Angeles Times that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts took part in helping homosexual activists win a major case before the high court in 1996.

In the Romer v. Evans decision, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Colorado citizens' initiative that blocked giving the same protection status to homosexuality that race, gender, and religion receive. The challenge to the initiative was handled by the law firm Roberts had just joined. The ruling has been categorized as one of the most significant victories for homosexual advocates in recent years. That background has Pat Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition worried.

"One of the key people who provided consultation, guidance, running moot courts and discussion for the group trying to overturn that citizens' initiative was none other than Judge John Roberts," Mahoney observes. "One wonders why he would offer this kind of support."

Many conservatives feel Judge Roberts' convictions may lean toward homosexual rights at a time when the future of marriage is in the balance. But while Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council admits to having a similar reaction himself initially, he is cautioning his fellow conservatives about jumping to such a conclusion.

Tony Perkins

The FRC president points out that Roberts was an attorney with a large firm where colleagues were expected to help each other when requested. "Attorneys are not necessarily advocates or activists," Perkins points out. "In fact, activists are exactly what we don't want on the court."

Perkins says his own investigation into Roberts' involvement in the case indicates the nominee's part in the case required the attorney to role-play. "I have verified that his involvement was limited to about five hours of participation in a moot court," he explains. "[H]e played the role of one of the [Supreme Court's] conservative members asking tough hypothetical questions of the attorneys who actually prepared and argued the case."

Meanwhile, according to Perkins, the motives behind one of the LA Times' main sources is being brought into question. That source, he says, is no longer with the legal firm where Roberts was employed -- but in fact is now with a "left-leaning" advocacy organization in the nation's capital.