I think we are ok on this one xzins. Notice the play on words. 'Dontated'. The left is taking this, running with it and playing more and more with the words on every article I see.
The left is doing this to turn us off on Roberts. Which tells me he is really a conservative.
My post 5.
I know I'm tired of the hypocrisy of the whole thing. We don't want democrats using abortion as a litmus test but we can use gay rights as a litmus test. We don't want a judge who is a judicial activist but we want him to rule the way we choose.
Re#5 Yep. What it appears to me is that Roberts was an appellate specialist, he was consulted on an appeal by his partners and he provided consultation. Were he behind the case, he would have been on it and argued it bfore SCOTUS. Big 'effin whoopee...
Then they have succeded with this conservative. I was on the fence until now. The only way Roberts can repair this with principled conservatives is if the LA Times article is a lie--that is Roberts did not work pro-bono on the case.
No person devoted to the interpretation of the Constitution as it is, not as the left wishes it were, would have contributed his time, for free as a volunteer, to effect one of the worst supreme court exercises of judicial activism in the past 50 years. Romer was a terrible decision, in some ways, far more radical than Roe or Lawrence v. Texas.
How is the fact that he devoted time, voluntarily and without pay (which may be described as a "donation") -- to a particularly radical gay "rights" legal case, ----- how does that fact "tell you he is really a conservative"? For me, it explains why Sen. Reid and Sen. Feinstein smiled broadly when Bush announced this nomination. IN the latest New Yorker, Reid says Bush nominated Roberts at a time of "political weakness" -- the nomination was designed to avoid a fight, Reid said. Reid says he foresees Roberts becoming another Souter on the Supreme Court.
What convoluted logic.
That he worked for free for homosexual rights activists is evidence he is a conservative?