[ModelBreaker]

Frankly I find it astonishing that you would not take a case as a lawyer that you had problems with. I thought lawyers acting as lawyers and lawyers acting as judges were two different things.

When working pro-bono, you do that because it is a good thing to do. It is an attorney's free, volunteer time. I tried not to advance bad causes when working pro-bono. Roberts advanced a very bad constitutional position when he didn't have to.

It would be a little like if I had some spare time and decided to work for John Kerry. A bad thing I didn't have to do.

[bkepley]

--It would be a little like if I had some spare time and decided to work for John Kerry. A bad thing I didn't have to do.--

That's not exactly what happened.

[bkepley]

From the article -

Roberts' work on behalf of gay rights activists, whose cause is anathema to many conservatives, appears to illustrate his allegiance to the credo of the legal profession: to zealously represent the interests of the client, whoever it might be.

---

In other words, there may be more than one side to this story, even if the decision really is such a grievous insult to the constitution. Using homophobia to stir up the right is such a typical media game.

[BikerNYC]

Roberts advanced a very bad constitutional position when he didn't have to.

Yes, he did have to. The firm took the cause on as a client. It would have been a violation of his fiduciary obligations to his partners and the firm's client to refuse to help in the representation of the client. It makes no difference if the client is paying a fee or not paying a fee. If the tax department called him up and asked him for his advice, he could not refuse it because he did not happen to like the way the client conducted business. If he cared that much about it, he would have had to leave the firm.