Lawyers, Guns and Money
Shakespeare's Sister reacts with a limited degree of optimism about the news that Roberts worked hard for his clients' interests in the landmark gay rights case Romer v. Evans. One thing to emphasize, though, is that this will be touted as a sign of moderation by many of the same people who claim that Roberts' anti-Roe and Griswold briefs don't mean anything. Obviously, this combination of claims can't stand; either you can draw inferences based on what a lawyer writes for a client or you can't, but you certainly can't do it selectively. My own view, as I've said before, is that I don't think much of anything can be inferred from either. Or, at least, anything particularly new or substative. The right of privacy briefs tell us that Roberts was the kind of lawyer who would be hired by an administration that wanted to overturn Griswold v. CT, and the actions Shakes' Sis mentions provide evidence that he's a comptent lawyer and not so hostile to gay people that he refuses to even work on a case that advances their interests. But as to how he would vote in upcoming cases about reproductive freedom or gay rights? I don't think either set of actions tells us anything about this, beyond which could be simply be inferred from the fact that George Bush nominated him.
...icoaste has more.
Romer v. Evans. One thing to emphasize, though, is that this will be touted as a sign of moderation by many of the same people who claim that Roberts' anti-Roe and Griswold briefs don't mean anything. Obviously, this combination of claims can't stand; either you can draw inferences based on what a lawyer writes for a client or you can't, but you certainly can't do it selectively. My own view, as I've said before, is that I don't think much of anything can be inferred from either. Or, at least, anything particularly new or substative. The right of privacy briefs tell us that Roberts was the kind of lawyer who would be hired by an administration that wanted to overturn Griswold v. CT, and the actions Shakes' Sis mentions provide evidence that he's a comptent lawyer and not so hostile to gay people that he refuses to even work on a case that advances their interests. But as to how he would vote in upcoming cases about reproductive freedom or gay rights? I don't think either set of actions tells us anything about this, beyond which could be simply be inferred from the fact that George Bush nominated him.
...icoaste has more.
