Oops. I mistakenly responded in the context of the gay rights work.
I can’t respond intelligently to your comments on the protesters’s case, since I just don’t know the circumstances.
I tihnk I have this straight:
protestors = wrote an amicus from the solicitors office against the use of the federal civil rights law (KKK law) against the protestors
gay rights = worked pro bono
Clearly he’s a gay-loving liberal. Let’s confirm him 
I agree with you Art.
As the nomination battle heated up, I received a bunch of e-mails seeking donations. It makes me wonder what the debate is really about.
And if the money spent on television by the opposing sides is money well spent. Wouldn’t we be better off if we spent less money on advertising? And spent on other things (take your pick: tanks, bikes, 5lb blocks of welfare cheese).
Television stations are opposed to election reform for this reason. They make huge advertising profits during elections.
So, I propose we just flip a coin.
Heads or tails?
You are wrong on this point. A lawyer who worked with Roberts was interviewed on this point. He mentioned that Roberts was often approached to assist (non-billable) in oral argument preparation. Roberts’ position was that by assisting in moot court arguments he would be helping to elevate the level of advocacy before the court. Personally, I don’t know why this really matters.
Moot Court? That is not the same thing. It can be spun in any way he wants, but the fact is that he volunteered to help with a gay rights case(on behalf of gays) and it’s making some conservative religious groups uneasy.
From the San Fran Chronicle:
Then, a lawyer specializing in appellate work, the conservative Roberts helped represent the gay activists as part of his law firm’s pro bono work. While he did not write the legal briefs or argue the case before the Supreme Court, he was instrumental in reviewing the filings and preparing oral arguments, according to several lawyers close to the case.
The article is consistent with the interview that I heard. He sat as a judge during a moot court argument (as I recall he played either Scalia or Rehnquist). He reviewed the briefs and case law as part of this exercise. The amount of time spent was six hours which would be consistent with reviewing briefs, case law and participating in moot court. I have served as a moot court judge and have spent more than six hours doing so. I don’t care whether it was pro bono or paid. As a former clerk for and practitioner before the court, he would be asked to participate in moot courts as a regular matter. I think it is honorable that he lent his expertise without regard to the nature of the client or the issue involved.
He was the head of the appelate division of his law firm. The case was to be argued in front of the Supreme Court. Of course he is going to lend a hand, and apparently he did a very good job according to accounts I have heard.
You are going to have to back up the “conservative religious groups being uneasy” comment. What groups and what makes you think they are “uneasy?”
No, there is no “of course”. Pro bono work is volunteer. I have absolutely no problem with him doing it, I hold him in higher regard for it. Is it indicative of his views? Possibly. Possibly not. It certainly shouldn’t be treated as if he had no choice in the matter or that the whole thing was a matter of course.
As for my back up:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45633
There was another article on yahoo news in which a group explicitly called for removing Roberts’ name from consideration but I am having trouble locating that at the moment…wait, here it is:
Pretty weak backup. There are only two people quoted that seem to be reacting as you describe, and they are so obscure that even this new junkie has never heard of them or their organization.
Anyone who would change their opinion of a man like this because of an “issue” like this can be easily ignored as not being a serious person.
I am just trying to imagine an attorney like Roberts refusing to help in the preparation of oral arguments in front of the Supreme Court on a case his firm was handling. I just can’t picture it. Even with all the cases Roberts has argued there, I can’t see ever getting jaded about such an experience. No matter how successful your career, you just don’t get many cracks at that experience.
If I was diametrically opposed to the position that the group was seeking help with, I don’t care where they were arguing, I wouldn’t help.
Well, there are many on the religious right that I would like to dismiss as not being a serious person. Unfortunately, many of them seem to be considered acceptable, rather than completely on the fringe.
I thought you were a lawyer. I don’t see how you could engage in most areas of the law without being able to energetically argue for positions with which you philosophically disagree. I certainly hope you are not a criminal defense attorney for example.
I just can’t see any attorney refusing to contribute to one of their firm’s SC arguments when offered the opportunity. I certainly wouldn’t. You just don’t get many bites at an apple like that in one lifetime.
Art, I am an attorney and you are absolutely correct. He was doing what any excellent attorney would do. There is no way H&H’s appellate head would refuse to help on any case the firm had. No debate there at all.
You are kidding right? You think I have to take every case that comes across my desk? I know many can do it, but I am unable to separate my professional self from my personal self, and thus there are many, many issues which I would pass on, regardless of where it was being argued, because I wouldn’t feel right about advocating a particular position.
And there is also a difference between disagreeing with a position and a position that is anathema to what I personally believe. I could take the case if it was the former situation, but not in the latter.
No, I am not kidding. I am trying to figure out if you are an attorney with strongly held philosophical convictions that he refuses to compromise, or one who cannot put his personal parochial interests above those of his client.
It sounds like a fine line you try not to cross. It can’t be easy.
NARAL has pulled the ad, of course without admitting that it was false, but nevertheless, it’s history.