[traderrob6]

You (and Ann) are aserting he is not. Do you find anything in post 86 to indicate he is other?

[Texas Federalist]

You (and Ann) are aserting he is not. Do you find anything in post 86 to indicate he is other?

The point is there is nothing in post 86 that proves he is a rock solid conservative, so we don't know. Why not appoint a sure thing, like Luttig. I like to think he is, but all we have is positions he's taken in legal briefs, which mean NOTHING. In my legal career, I have written some pretty strong language in briefs advocating positions I personally disagreed with.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

I didn't assert anything about Roberts. I asked a simple question: do you have an authoritative list of cases that he has worked on that he has not disclaimed? If so, please provide the links or direct me to the text.

The "does not necessarily represent" disclaimer means that neither side ought to find anything convincing in the case he worked on. Such a disclaimer is intended to distance the speaker/writer from what they say. Plenty of lawyers work on cases they don't agree with. Most defense attorneys know their clients are guilty.

I don't know anything about Roberts. If the man is a conservative, great, I'm behind him.

I was simply looking for authoritative evidence of the fact, not regurgitated hearsay. And I wasn't condemning him before evidence, any more than I would find a man innocent without evidence.