The president's staff must have vetted this case already with Judge Roberts during the application process, if it was good enough for them--it's good enough for me.
I hope you're right. I have to admit, this story gave me some concern.
Notice that his name isn't on any documents that pertain to the case. He only gave advice about briefs and arguments.
The White House may well not know anything about his work in the case.
I'm inclined to agree with Coulter that "good enough" doesn't cut it, not when we control the Senate and have a VP tie-vote breaker.
We ought to be going for "demonstrably and clearly proven" not merely "good enough, even if that means a one-vote squeaker win. The last thing we need is an apparent conservative who is ready to jettison his conservatism to advance emotion-based judical legislating on behalf his favorite oppressed ersatz victim group.
"The president's staff must have vetted this case already with Judge Roberts during the application process, if it was good enough for them--it's good enough for me." - gopwinsin04
That's certainly what Republicans said about the Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter nominations. Are those justices to your taste?
Lawrence vs. Texas, that was the case that overruled previous precedent, Bowers vs. Hardwick, thus legalizing homosexual sodomy. For me, the important part of this case is that a Supreme Court case CAN be over ruled, including Roe vs. Wade. Roberts said he would respect Supreme Court precedent, and Lawrence vs. Texas now IS Supreme Court precedent......