This gal could be overplaying his role in the case
Of course they are. I mean, consider the original source of this story: THE L.A. TIMES. You know darn well they stretched what little facts they had to the breaking point to spin this as hard as they could to get this reaction from the right. In this article, the author states "What Perkins omitted from his newsletter was that in fact Roberts provided key strategies for fashioning a majority on the court." Now, where in the Sam Hill can a statement like that come from? It's just made up. The court is going to decide how it decides and not based on one attorney's prep of another for argument.
That said, I am not troubled by this for a number of reasons. Roberts worked for a large law firm. Roberts was an appellate specialist. His colleagues were working on an appeal. They consulted Roberts. He agreed. What was he supposed to say? "No way Jose, I'm not going to help a bunch of fags and dykes?" This story is agitprop. As such, I'm with LD on hearing what Roberts has to say, if anything. That the NY Times is going after his adoption papers and the left is dumping huge resources to keep him off the bench is my greatest comfort. That and knowing W and his faith and belief system...
The troubling part isn't his level of participation, but if he had a role in choosing to accept the case.