Not knocking it, here. But wouldn’t that be more indicative of the corporate culture that employed him than indicative of any personal virtue on his part?
I’m sure this will shock some, but so far, with everything I’ve heard, I have nothing to hold against Roberts. I really don’t think there should be a fight for confirmation…he’s conservative, but not wildly rabid. I think Bush (or his judicial steering committee) has pulled the rug out from under any serious challenges by choosing someone whom no one really expected and who is, in relation to what was expected, fairly sane and respectable even with his ideological opponents.
That’s true. It is an indication of the firm’s culture. However, Roberts wasn’t a mere employee at the firm - he was a senior partner there, and as such was a shaper of the corporate culture and behavior.
Now, granted, he joined a firm with an established pro bono tradition. But all indications are that he did his part to keep this tradition going.
Indeed. Thanks. Hence the word “upholding” in my post.
In his speech last night, Bush said the guy “has a good heart”. What more do you want? 
Well, that settles it!
[personal aside] All I know is, this wonderful John Roberts feller has made me completely forget about the skankalicious criminal activity of that Karl Rove! Thank you, missa President. I was actually beginning to question your administration’s commitment to integrity. [/personal aside]
Is it his?
“He keeps it in a jar on his desk.”
Robert Bloch, rest his soul.
Somebody over in the parallel pit thread says Ann “Anne of Green Goebbels” Coulter doesn’t like him. If he doesn’t have the support of the pro-rabies lobby, maybe, just maybe…
This is one of those places where I’ve got to regard the ‘game’ of politics as secondary to its real-world effects.
I’m all for losing a battle to win the war, when the loss of the battle doesn’t mean that much. This one means rather a great deal.
Also, so much has already happened in the past four years that by all rights should have changed the landscape. Expecting the overturn of Roe to bring about the Dems’ renewal seems like misplaced faith to me. Oh, it could happen. But I don’t think it’s a gimme.
That said, if he really disagreed with what he was arguing, I don’t think he’d take the case. Both my parents are attorneys for the Justice Department, and yet they are still allowed to refuse cases that strongly conflict with their personal views (such as death penalty cases). Obviously, they take some cases where they don’t agree with the government’s position 100%, but nothing where the position they’re arguing is truly repugnant to them.
That said, DOJ rules probably vary a bit from section to section. My parents may just benefit from working under a good boss, who’s going to try to keep her subordinates happy and not give them cases that will make them hate their jobs. And my parents are career Justice Dept. people – it’s probably different for political appointees, which is what I assume Roberts was. Of course, the political appointees were presumably chosen in part because of their politics. Roberts probably never would have been hired if he wasn’t willing to fight Roe v. Wade. Doesn’t mean he necessarily wants to overturn it, but he clearly doesn’t have a major objection to it being overturned.
It wasn’t a client; it was his boss. He was the Principal Deputy Solicitor General. And working in the SG’s office, while tremendously prestigious, in no way means that you agree with every jot and tittle of the administration’s positions. Assistant Solicitor Generals routinely stay on from one administration to the next, and while the appointment of Deputies (particularly the Principal Deputy) is certainly more political in nature, it’s just a job. You’re required to argue for the position the government tells you to.
Put another way: this fall I start a clerkship for a fairly conservative federal judge, yet I myself am damn liberal. Are you saying that I won’t be devoting my full energy to the job, or are you saying that I’ll be a hypocrite if I do? (Or, in the interests of avoiding a false binary, are you saying something else entirely?)
It’s fair to say that Roberts was appointed as a Deputy SG because he was politically conservative. It’s unfair to take a position he advocated in his capacity as Deputy SG and attribute it to him personally.
The Office of the Solicitor General (which is tiny, by the way) operates very differently than the Department of Justice as a whole.
I don’t doubt for a second that Roberts wouldn’t mind seeing RvW overturned. I’m sure that GWB wouldn’t have picked him if he wanted to uphold it. I’m just saying that to draw this conclusion based upon his previous job is probably unfair. I doubt that someone in the administration read the procedings and said, “By God, this is our man.”
Doesn’t that put Roberts right up there with Vladimir Putin?
That’s Our George. Such a fine judge of character.
Just when I was starting to feel a little better, you gotta remind me that GeeDubya once lookrf into Vlad the Impaler’s soul and liked what he saw. Thanks a lot, Mr. Sunshine.
Just to finish this up: It looks like $$$ won, no question.
Everytime I see certain shots of Judge Roberts I catch myself thinking “OMG, Bush nominated Tom Hanks”
Not that any of that is important, just felt the need to share 