Replies

I consider it natural that he would assist his colleagues in a matter like this. The legal position Roberts was helping his firm (and other attorneys involved in the case) advance regarding what the Constitution does and doesn't protect was wrong, I believe, as a matter of law. However, it was not immoral."

This angle sort of makes the case that we shouldn't be looking for a lawyer to be put in a position where we expect high principles.

This angle sort of makes the case that we shouldn't be looking for a lawyer to be put in a position where we expect high principles.

There is a lawyer philosophy and a judicial philosophy and they are different. The fact that he was the lead appellate attorney for a firm with 1000 lawyers all over the world that took on all sorts of cases should make it clear that he was obligated to help those lawyers with the procedural aspects of their appellate cases. I think that says something positive about his principles as a lawyer. Also, consider the fact that he has spent about 50,000 hours as a lawyer and a judge (2080 hours times 25 years) and the best the libs can come up with is this 10 hours. How about we look into the other 49,990 hours?