[gopwinsin04]

El Rushbo even has the Slimes listening, maybe they like to hear themsleves torn apart everyday.

[BlueNgold]

For those on the far right inclined to be upset that he did this work please take a deep breath and refuse the bait: don't let them drive a wedge.

They are not attacking from the left, they are attacking from the right:
In order to outflank your opponent you must first recognize the tell-tale signs of their original flanking maneuver. This is it.

They will hide this behind self-glorifications of 'balance' and 'telling both sides' - but it remains an attack. See this for what it is, and remain vigilant.

[CyberAnt]

I said this on another thread and it bears repeating here:

"Having worked at a law office with 140 attorneys - I can assure people that an attorney does what they are told to do by a department head - Roberts would have had no choice in helping this group, and he would have had no choice in deciding if it was "pro bono" or not.

These issues [pro bono; taking certain cases] are office policy issues established by the partners of the firm, and are NOT determined by an individual lawyer who isn't a partner.

I believe the LAT is determined to drive a wedge between Roberts and the conservatives by trying to foment Roberts being a gay-friendly person (because the LAT people believe all conservatives are gay-haters)."

Remember, Roberts did not own the law firm, nor was he a partner. This would mean that although he had the prestige of working for that firm .. he would do as he was told .. the same as any other employee.

[truth_seeker]

Not much reason to even hold the hearings, another month from now.

BOTH sides have tried him, in the press. BOTH.

[Brilliant]

I am sorry that I have to be the one who breaks the news to my fellow conservatives, but even a "strict constructionist" is not going to rule that gay marriage is unconstitutional. It's a state issue, and the Court will defer to state law. The only federal issue, really, is whether one state must recognize the other state's gay marriages. And that issue is one that the conservatives will probably lose in the end. The Constitution's full faith and credit clause has already been held by the Supreme Court to require the states to recognize each other's marriages. The only question is whether the Court should make an exception for gay marriages, which seems very remote to me. Certainly, there is nothing in the Constitution to suggest there should be an exception.

[Texas Eagle]

This just goes to show that we are not just a bunch of mind-numbed robots who march in lockstep with a President just because he's a Republican.

This is a legitimate concern for us. We know from experience that The Left never gives up on its destructive agenda. It's only a matter of time before another case involving gay marriage reaches The Supreme Court. If Roberts is a Justice hearing the case, how would we expect him to vote knowing that he had previously argued a case before the same Supreme Court in favor of gay marriage?