[CyberAnt]

Your total lack of understanding of how the courts and lawyers work - well .. it's stunning.

If you hire a lawyer to defend you in court - you want him to defend YOUR POINT OF VIEW. It doesn't matter if it's the lawyer's point of view or not.

So Roberts defended somebody who supports affirmative action - that does not mean that ROBERTS SUPPORTS ARFFIRMATIVE ACTION.

Your entire reply is a beautiful museum of ignorance.

[msnimje]

What are your creditidentials to make such accusations and assumptions? Why do you look at the issues only on the surface rather than take into consideration the fact that he was working for clients therefore arguing THEIR STANCE, not his own.
Are you a reporter for CBS? CNN? NYT?

[Natural Law]

You have completely missed the mark in several areas. Roberts was selected by the President because he is an originalist, NOT a judicial activist. He will interpret the constitution regardless of what his personal feelings are on any case. Second, he advocated in the Rice vs Cayetano on behalf of his client, the US Government. It was not a personally motivated amicus brief.

[taxesareforever]

Mark Levin, author of "Men in Black," a new conservative critique of the Supreme Court, sees no conflict and is a fan of Roberts. "In the short period he has been on the court, John Roberts has shown he does not bring a personal agenda to his work. He follows the Constitution, and he is excellent."

[Dave S]

Roberts took the side of pro racial preferences and quotas in the rice vs cayatano case giving racial preferences to native hawaii islanders. He argued this before the supreme court. And look who he argued against and with will tell you all you need to know about the "fake conservative" Roberts.

Lawyers are not activists. They are hired by clients who pay them to argue a case. He doesnt make his million dollars plus a year as partner in his law firm by chasing after movement legal cases and doing them pro bono. His arguing this case for the State of Hawaii tells you no more about his views than his writing a brief against Roe v. Wade for the first Bush administration. In each case, he was a lawyer advocating for his client. Jeez!!

[k2blader]

Source??

[Soul Seeker]

I see. So Roberts arguing against abortion and for school prayer means NOTHING, but Roberts arguing for affirmative actin should be taken as his views? Interesting double standard, and shows where you are coming from.

[Labyrinthos]

I once represented a person accused of murder. I guess that makes me pro-homicide.

[Alia]

Memo at Reagan Library Sheds Light on Roberts's Civil Rights Views

snips:

WASHINGTON - While an associate counsel in the Reagan White House, President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge John Roberts Jr., made an intellectual argument for limiting the application of federal anti-discrimination laws, but he counseled the administration that for political reasons it should not adopt his view.

The advice from Judge Roberts is contained in a July 24, 1985, memorandum he wrote to the White House counsel, Fred Fielding. The two-page memo was obtained by The New York Sun yesterday from the Reagan Library, which houses a veritable treasure trove of documents that Judge Roberts handled during his four-year stint at the White House.

Senate Democrats have said they will ask for full access to the records, but an archivist said the nonpublic files will be released only upon the request of the Bush administration.

In his memo, Judge Roberts also took a swipe at Mr. Kennedy's legislation, saying it would "radically expand the civil rights laws to areas of private conduct never before considered covered."

--end snips

[Smartaleck]

Looks like the state/Roberts won.

Deciding for the state -
Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O'Connor, Scalia, and Thomas, JJ., joined.

No?