Public Advocate Distressed About LA Times Report on Roberts (Calls to Clarify or Withdraw)

Judge Roberts the entire time he was there at the firm never refused for ideological reasons or any other reason to assist and give advice as to the best way to proceed with regard to a particular legal situation.

Which is what lawyers DO. A lawyer isn't there to judge a case--he's there to represent a client. Period.

And anyone here who needed a lawyer for any reason wouldn't want one who'd represent their case according to the lawyer's personal feelings. They'd want one who would represent their best interests in the course of the action.

I doubt there's ever been a lawyer who only represented innocent people. (If we find seven of them, these same unrealistic critics would have something else to whine about.) Until we can find all these lawyers who only represent perfect angels, we'll have to settle for those who are actually playing their proper part in the system--not as legislators or judges, but lawyers.

Sean Hannity said that Judge Roberts devoted less than something like 10 hours on the case with the moot court arguements and potential 'strategy session' advise.

I'm sure his critics will now continue to damn him for those ten hours. Ten hours! LOL! Yeah, that Bush has scaroooed the conservatives again, he picked a judge who did ten hours work for a client when he was a lawyer. String 'em both up! (It seems I have to add a "jk" for some people.)

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.

Close, but no cigar. In big law firms, pro bono cases are not "assigned" to senior lawyers or partners. They are given to first or second year attorneys. These attorneys can ask for help from more senior people on the pro bono committee.

The primary premise of help from more senior lawyers in the firm is not to push a specific agenda, but rather to train the junior lawyers in advocacy.

I suspect that that is all that Roberts did - i.e. train his junior lawyers in how to advocate for your client. In the case of Romer vs. whatever, perhaps the problem was that the other side just didn't have good lawyers, trained in advocacy.

'We hope against hope that his report is false, and if it is, we call on Judge Roberts to correct the record immediately. If the report is true, and Judge Roberts did provide advise on how to overturn this pro-family measure overhwelmingly supported by the people of Colorado, then Public Advocate calls on President Bush to withdraw his nomination of John Roberts immediately.'

I agree 100%.

Reagan Man, especially as a Coloradan, I am sure you take this very personally .. it was a bad decision .. but that's not what this is about .. it's not about the CO referendum or the SC decision in Roemer. And, it's most certainly not about Roberts taking the wrong side or making a bad judgment.

Roberts didn't "side with" the homosexuals. What he did was to instruct other lawyers in his firm how to write and present their case at the Supreme Court. That was his job. What the case was about was irrelevant to his purposes. He instructed them in the process.

Briefing and arguing at the Supreme Court is different than any other court. Roberts shared the benefit of his experience in that unique process with other attorneys. There is nothing to say that he helped to research and develop the arguments themselves, much less take on the cause for his firm.

Think of this: Robert Bork taught both Bill and Hillary Clinton when they were students at Yale. Was he not to teach them exactly as he'd teach conservative students? If they then went on successfully pursuing their careers, based in part on what he taught them, are we to blame Bork? Of course not.

The LAT was entirely too clever writing this story as they did .. oh, Roberts HELPED the gay rights group prevail at the Supreme Court. The winning lawyers claimed they couldn't have done it without him. They conveniently leave out that his contribution consisted of process only. The Slimes KNEW the effect would be to cause controversy among conservatives, and peel off some support.

What is stunning is that people who should know better are falling into the LAT trap.

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.