[mtntop3]

Anytime the NYT puts anything on its front page, it is inevitably anti-U.S., anti-Bush, anti-Republican, anti-conservative.

This article is manifestly intended to crease dissention among conservatives. And there will be some who fall for the bait as indicated in this thread.

Roberts has never been a gay-rights advocate. He was simply in this instance ASKED BY A PRIVATE LAW FIRM, of which he was then a member, to provide pro bono advice to this group.

An attorney is expected to have the professional capacity to develop arguments for either side of a case - this is standard practice beginning in law school. Attorneys in a law firm do not normally decline the firm's assignment request.

If this is the only instance of Robert's "sins", he's in pretty good shape. You have to consider such an instance relative to the entire record of Roberts which is manifestly outstanding.

The latest example:

The Bush administration wants to start the millitary commission trials of Guantanamo prisoners as soon as September after a federal appeals court last month (July) found the trial proceedings legal.

THAT THREE JUDGE-PANEL INCLUDED SUPREME COURT NOMINEE JOHN G. ROBERTS JR.

The panel reversed a lower court ruling that halted the proceedings last November on grounds that they violated due process and U.S. obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

This ruling by Roberts and the other two judges was, you can be DAMN sure, most unpleasing to the NYT.

[You Dirty Rats]

And there will be some who fall for the bait as indicated in this thread.

Let's give credit where creidt is due -- the LA and NY Slimers are major-league master baiters!

[gopwinsin04]

I think you hit the nail on the head dead on, if this is the best the liberals can come up with on Roberts after a 25 year legal career, than he will win confirmation easily.

[Thrusher]

This article is manifestly intended to crease dissention among conservatives. And there will be some who fall for the bait as indicated in this thread.

Most of the people on this thread are trying to intelligently discuss the subject matter here, which includes presenting opinions about whether Roberts will be the type of Supreme Court Justice that Bush promised to appoint. Almost everyone engaged in that discussion has acknowledged that the intent of the Slimes' article is to sow dissention among conservatives.

I refuse to allow the Slimes to make up my mind for me, but I also refuse to allow whatever tactics they use to try to turn me off of Roberts to automaticaly force me to blindly accept him. A rational discussion of his legal experience is completely reasonable.

An attorney is expected to have the professional capacity to develop arguments for either side of a case - this is standard practice beginning in law school. Attorneys in a law firm do not normally decline the firm's assignment request.

You make an excellent point: this is very true, and as an attorney, I have had to take positions on behalf of clients that I did not necessarily agree with from a personal point of view in order to do my job.