In a response to a post in someone else's journal*,
shannonwest said "Just because Roberts did pro bono work for gay rights that doesn't mean he supports the cause. Don't be fooled by it. I mean, lawyers have to do a certain amount of pro bono work, yes? And do they always get to pick their cases? I don't think so. Anyway, I've known lawyers to do pro bono work on cases where they thought it might help get them publicity, regardless of whether or not they had any interest whatsoever in the outcome of the case (aside from their own win, of course)."
I have seen this sort of sentiment a few other places in left-leaning blogs, sort of an "OMG! He can't have actually done something we approve of?" reaction. (There is another, uglier, reaction wondering if Roberts took on the case because he is in the closet. Because, if you look at it that way, the only reason anyone would support gay rights is if they in fact are gay.)
So let's talk about what all this means. And let's contrast it against those elusive memoranda prepared while he was deputy solicitor general.
( Brian talked me into using a cut tag. Thank him. : ) )
I have seen this sort of sentiment a few other places in left-leaning blogs, sort of an "OMG! He can't have actually done something we approve of?" reaction. (There is another, uglier, reaction wondering if Roberts took on the case because he is in the closet. Because, if you look at it that way, the only reason anyone would support gay rights is if they in fact are gay.)
So let's talk about what all this means. And let's contrast it against those elusive memoranda prepared while he was deputy solicitor general.
( Brian talked me into using a cut tag. Thank him. : ) )
