Conservatives Alarmed at Roberts’ Role in Playboy Case

"You can always decline a case, we don't have slavery in this country.

However, it's pretty clear to me that he took the pro bono case because it was an opportunity to use his specialized skills in pro bono work. Not very often does a lawyer get to be involved in a Supreme Court case. The vast majority of lawyers don't have that opportunity even once in their entire career. This was right up his alley. I can tell you from experience that it would be a whole lot more interesting than representing deadbeats who don't pay their rent, and then resist evictions, which is the usual pro bono case. "

That's a great artful lawyerlike response and has a fair amount of merit. I suspect that a senior lawyer with loads of Supreme Court experience, with a prominent DC firm gets lots of choices to argue Supreme Court pro bonos--and not many of them are your local trial court deadbeat representations either.

But there are a lot of other pressures that come into play in that setting which often are more significant. Sure, you don't have to do it--practically if the firm wants you to do it, you are very likely to oblige your partners even under circumstances where you might prefer not to.

I am not a Roberts critic, but I doubt Roberts had any of those pressures. He was a hotshot, and could pretty much do what he wanted. I suspect he did not do it because he agreed with the cause. He probably did it because it was an interesting case, and it put his talent to use. He probably would not have found representing a poor tenant at the trial court level to be a very interesting case.

"I am not a Roberts critic, but I doubt Roberts had any of those pressures. He was a hotshot, and could pretty much do what he wanted."

Wrong. I have been a hotshot in a big law firm--you still do what your partners want unless you have some material business related reason not to.

Yeah, but I've been a partner in a big firm too. They can't force you to do anything. You do it as a favor to your parner. But if you really don't feel you can do it, then it's easy enough to come up with an excuse, or if you are a hotshot, then you can just say no.

I have no doubt that he did this willingly. But that doesn't mean he believes in their cause. And even if he believed in that cause, that doesn't mean that he disagrees with the bulk of our philosophy.

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that is a description of his role in the Playboy case. In the homosexual case, I think he was the lead lawyer and argued the case

You are wrong. He only did some favors for his colleages on that case. Roberts did not argue the case and was certainly not the lead lawyer.

As to your other point, reality is that this guy appears to have made himself the same kind of blank slate Souter was when he was appointed. You have absolutely no basis on which to found your hope that this guy will be the kind of justice you want.

Roberts worked for Reagan, G. Bush, Rehnquist, and GW Bush. Roberts whole career is working on conservative causes outside of a couple instances where he provided minor help to his liberal colleagues. I am sure they helped Roberts in similar ways. Roberts is one of the most brilliant conservative minds there is, and it is utter non-sense to compare him to Souter. I would wage ANY amount of money that Roberts is no Souter. I am completely confident Roberts will be the best friend our Constitution has.

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.