That should bring Ted Kennedy right on board.
wonderful
"Shannen Coffin, a Catholic friend of Roberts and a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Bush administration, predicted Roberts would “separate personal philosophy from legal philosophy. Being Catholic, I don’t think, affects him any more than if he’s Hindu."
Ann Coulter may be right on this guy.
We are scr-wed once again BUMP!!
This is very disturbing news concerning a guy that is supposed to be a 'conservative'. Here we go again....
Told ya!
[Little Wharvey Gal voice] He's a Souter!
J
This should make the whinning libs all run up to Roberts and kiss and hug him......
The issue is whether Judge Roberts is a strict constructionist or not. The cited case doesn't tell us anything about that, one way or the other.
The confirmation hearings should tell us what we need to know, particularly when Senator Coburn is questioning. I would pay attention to that, rather than anything coming out in the media before then.
So far we've been doing nothing but trying to read dry tea leaves and look at chicken entrails to determine what this individual will do if he's confirmed. Now we have a single solid piece of evidence, AND IT'S BAD. That an attorney takes a case for a paying client and argues it says little or nothing about whether the attorney agrees with the client's position--a Democrat plumber can just as well fix a Republican's toilet without becoming a Republican.
When its pro bono, it's very different. The attorney, Roberts in this case, is giving his time. When that time and skill are given to an ideological cause, as he did here, the only reasonable conclusion is he supports that cause. What's even more disturbing is that this case overturned a popular referendum, meaning that, contrary to some of the VERY SMALL indications he's given to the contrary, he could easily be another Souter or Stevens.
This also raises a serious issue about his integrity. The Senate questionnaire he received called on him to list all pro bono cases he'd been involved in. He failed to list this one. Those who believe in judicial tooth faeries can believe he did this unintentionally.
In short, we now have a Republican nominated candidate for the Supreme Court whose greatest judicial success was acting as a pro bono stealth lawyer for homosexual activists and winning an activist decision that overturned a popular referendum. Then, when asked about his work on pro bono cases, he lied to the Senate by not disclosing this work. As far as I'm concerned, this disqualifies him for the seat, both ideologically and ethically.
duplicate:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1456604/posts?page=60
Plant story.
Hogan and Hartson? Hogan and Hartson?
Berger was at Hogan and Hartson. They have represented the DNC, Comunist China, Bill Clinton's Innagural Committee, John Huang...
Read about them here.
Too early to say...
Many questions from both-sides-of-the-aisle
at the confirmation hearings will give a much better read
Roberts was the the appellate supervisor at Hogan and Harston. He was obligated to check the work of the underling lawyers involved in the case.