August 06, 2005 08:00 AM UTC

John Roberts and Colorado's Amendment 2

•  
• by: Colorado Pols

The Los Angeles Times dropped a rhetorical grenade on the debate over Supreme Court nominee John Roberts’ confirmation this week. Seemingly unbeknownst to the conservatives backing Roberts, he helped defeat the anti-gay Amendement 2 to  Colorado’s constitution when it was argued before the Supreme Court in 1995. Both sides insist it’s no big deal, which is only puzzling for a moment:

Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. worked behind the scenes for gay rights activists, and his legal expertise helped them persuade the Supreme Court to issue a landmark 1996 ruling protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation.

Jean Dubofsky, lead lawyer for the gay rights activists and a former Colorado Supreme Court justice, said that when she came to Washington to prepare for the U.S. Supreme Court presentation, she immediately was referred to Roberts.

She said he gave her advice in two areas that were “absolutely crucial.”

“John Roberts…was just terrifically helpful in meeting with me and spending some time on the issue,” she said. “He seemed to be very fair-minded and very astute.”

Many social conservatives we know are quietly disturbed by this disclosure, which wasn’t part of a hefty pack of documents that reportedly included such things as Roberts’ membership at a neighborhood rec center. James “von SpongeDob” Dobson “expressed concern” over Roberts’ work in defense of gay rights, but has worked hard to downplay its significance. The right is so far invested in Roberts at this point that he’d have to get busted smoking crack with Marion Barry before they’d give him up.

Most on the left, especially the ad-hoc coalition headed by the National Abortion Rights Action League and People for the American Wayformed to challenge pretty much anybody Bush nominatedare worried that this  could weaken what they feel has been growing liberal opposition to Roberts.

The fact is that they’re both right: liberals probably have less to fear from Roberts than they’ve been working themselves up for, and the religious right may not be able to rely on him to carry out their agenda as they presently do with Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. There’s a chance that Roberts just might interpret the Constitution impartially, which is what both sides claim they want. Previous Justices (like Sandra Day O’Connor) have notably failed to deliver what their would-be patrons expected, to the country’s benefit.

But with so many front groups flush with millions of dollars and determined to keep their talking points at sound-bite length, don’t look for anybody to admit it.