Posted on 08/05/2005 3:41:17 PM PDT by gopwinsin04
>>>>Your opposition was a given before it was announced.
Wrong again. You're batting zero on this thread.
Amnesty George just fu*&^$ us conservatives again and our leaders won't do a damn thing about it.
This is exactly what the LA-Slimes wanted...turn the conervatives against one another...
It's a great strategy, and in the case of Public Advocate, they took the bait.
I think all some of conservatives want is for Roberts to clearly answer some important questions. Emphasis on clearly.
This may be liberals way overstating his role in this case, and because of the Ginsberg rule we may never get to hear him explain it.
Well, fine and dandy, then. Keep on criticizing Roberts while telling us that you don't oppose him. That'll be fun.
I'm fully expecting this, actually..
But I'd really appreciate being wrong. :-)
PresBush isn't afraid of constructive criticism. Neither is John Roberts. You on the other hand are as thin skinned and pathetic as they come.
My sense is: what's there to explain? It seems pretty straight forward. His law firm took this case on as part of its pro bono work, assigned it to Roberts, who spent a few hours briefing the real advocates on how cases are presented before the Supreme Court. His advice seemed technical in nature; he didn't advocate for the case; he was fulfilling his law firm's commitment. Anyone wanting to make this into something bigger than it is needs to stop hyperventilating.
...he said, defensively.
Well, coming from anyone else but you, I'd consider that an insult.
FReepers have been "hyperventilating" against judicial activism for some time now. It's only expected that they are interested in what Roberts *believes* regarding the case.
I believe this is a divide-and-conquer attempt on behalf of the radical left.
If the shoe fits....
He didn't advocate for the case, that's the point. What he *believes* about the case is irrelevant. He had a job to do at the behest of his firm, and he did it. Ten frickin' hours, which is nothing. I still think people need to calm down.
I mean, unless certain conservatives were FAKING their concern over judicial activism.
Romer v. Evans is a textbook example.
I think your post demonstrates what is so wrong with part of the GOP these days.
It's not a bad strategy and we should copy it. Get the Dems yelling at each other.
Reagan man ... your assumption is incorrect ... Roberts didn't choose this as a pro bono case. Nor did he work on it. Roberts at the time was with Hogan and Hartson, a 1000 (yes, one THOUSAND) lawyer firm. They have an entire department that takes on pro bono cases of all kinds. As the resident expert on Supreme Court appeals, Roberts reviewed that department's work, and gave advice on writing winning briefs and presentations. He neither wrote nor presented.
Think of it as a law professor teaching those who will be taught .. in this case, his advice to the Hogan and Hartson pro bono team helped them to win. Down the line they could win another argument you and I like by following the same advice.
Conservatives are being fooled into believing his advice to the team in this case actually represented his active involvement or support. His "support" was technical and on process.
What is dangerous here is the LA Slimes writing up this story so that conservatives jump on the band wagon without a clue of what the story is really about, much less how huge law firms operate, or how cases are conducted before the Supreme Court. And I thought conservatives were smart.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.