1) Powerline Blog (Lawyers all)"Nor am I concerned if, as the Los Angeles Times reports, Roberts helped lawyers in his firm who were arguing before the Supreme Court, in a pro bono representation, that the Constitution protects people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation. Roberts was the lead attorney in his firm's appellate practice. 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."
2) Senator Fred Thompson on Rush's show today.
3) http://www.supremecourtwatch.org/roberts.aspx This website is full of left wing hatred of the Conservative history of Judge Roberts - check it out.
Thank you, but *opinions* from blogs and a senator don't cut it.
If it can be proven that Roberts worked on the case against his will, the dynamic of this story should indeed change.
We won't know for a fact unless Roberts or his former boss comes out and says, "It was not voluntary."
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.
"His exceedingly restrictive view of federal law-making authority -- more restrictive than the current Supreme Court's -- could threaten a wide swath of workplace, civil rights, public safety and environmental protections. In his years of service as a political appointee in the administrations of Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, Judge Roberts also helped craft legal policies that sought to weaken school desegregation efforts, the reproductive rights of women, environmental protections, church-state separation and the voting rights of African Americans."
Interesting complaint, coming from them.
Sounds like he worked against in-utero mass murder, forced busing, environmental wackos, the antireligious fanatics at ACLU, and vote fraud.