[California Patriot]

It's quite possible. Logically, it doesn't matter if Roberts sympathizes with the gay-rights agenda or not.
If he's willing to keep the courts from advancing it, that's fine with me. However, the litigation he helped with was aimed at precisely that. If Roberts thought these clients were seeking an illegitimate ruling, he should have stayed out of the case. It's not like he was some vulnerable young kid just out of law school. Roberts could have taken a stand against this abuse of the process, and he chose not to. So either he is insufficiently principled, or he actually believed in the merits of the gays' lawsuit, which were zero. Distressing.

[BikerNYC]

Roberts could have taken a stand against this abuse of the process, and he chose not to.

The firm had taken on the clients and the cause. He had to help or be in violation of his obligations to his partners and a client of the firm. If he felt that strongly against his firm taking a stand on this issue, he should have left the firm. Otherwise, he must zealously represent clients of the firm whether or not the client pays millions of dollars in fees.

[churchillbuff]

Roberts could have taken a stand against this abuse of the process, and he chose not to."""

Hey, stop spouting common sense. Don't you know we're not supposed to exercise critical, independent judgment when it comes to this nominee? You'll find Bushbots continuing to rationalize for Roberts even if he votes to strike down traditional marriage laws. Rush will be saying that all the controversy over the decision "is designed to split conservatives", and we'll be told to pay no attention to the facts, but move on.

[tame]

Roberts could have taken a stand against this abuse of the process, and he chose not to. So either he is insufficiently principled, or he actually believed in the merits of the gays' lawsuit, which were zero. Distressing.

BINGO! severely distressing, indeed.