WP: In Private Practice, Roberts's Record Is Mixed

[DeepModem Mom]

In Private Practice, Roberts's Record Is Mixed
Some Cases Run Counter to Conservative Image, but Activists on the Right Say His Past Is Irrelevant

By Jo Becker and Michael Grunwald
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, August 5, 2005; Page A02


As a private lawyer, John G. Roberts Jr. represented homeless Washingtonians who had lost their government benefits because of city budget cuts. He advocated environmental protections for Lake Tahoe, Glacier Bay and the Grand Canyon. He spent 25 hours assisting a convicted murderer with a death penalty appeal. He even helped gay rights activists win a landmark Supreme Court anti-discrimination case.

At first blush, these cases would seem to complicate any image of the Supreme Court nominee as a down-the-line conservative. But as details have emerged in recent days, conservative groups have been busy spreading the word to their members and the broader public about what they should think of Roberts's work in private practice: Pay it no mind.

At second blush, Roberts's role is hardly surprising, say people who have worked with him or studied his career. For more than a decade, he practiced appellate law at the Washington firm Hogan & Hartson in a distinctly non-ideological fashion. Now, as liberal and conservative activists pick over his career for evidence of his political and legal philosophy, neither side seems to attach much importance to his diverse practice. And some activists on both sides remain secure in their conviction that he is an emphatic conservative who will move the high court to the right -- never mind his client list.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/04/AR2005080402032.html

[JDPriestly]

1. A long history of pro bono work for humanitarian causes

is a sign of compassion in a lawyer. Lawyers choose to do pro bono work. They don't have to do it. Large firms encourage it, but at least, where I worked, they did not require it.

Any lawyer Bush nominates for the Supreme Court will be conservative. He is not going to nominate a pro-choice, anti-corporation, civil rights liberal. That's just not going to happen.

The most we can hope for is that a Bush nominee be honest, compassionate and flexible. Thus far, it appears that Roberts is all three.

I would fault Scalia and Rehnquist less for their judicial philosophies than for their lack of compassion. I heard Scalia speak. I was horrified at his sneering, condescending attitude. In my view, he totally lacks compassion. His opinions reflect scorn for anyone he considers less clever than himself. Rehnquist on the other hand, although capable of humor, seems aloof and cold.

I do not have the impression that Roberts is as arrogant as Scalia or as cold as Rehnquist. Mind you, I probably do not agree with him on many, many issues, and I would much prefer a liberal like Justice Thurgood Marshall. In my opinion, however, the most important litmus tests for a Supreme Court Justice are compassion and flexibility. A person with compassion and flexibility can change and learn. Just as conservative justices can become more liberal on the Supreme Court, liberal justices can become more conservative. It is unlikely, however, that a person without compassion or flexibility will develop those traits on the Court.

Depending on the issue, I am liberal to middle of the road politically. I base my opinion on having worked both with politically liberal and politically conservative lawyers and judges.

[Psephos]

2. Thoughtful and insightful post n/t

[imenja]

3. His judicial temperament is reportedly quite different from Scalia's

Roberts is said to be far more modest, and doesn't display the kind of judicial arrogance that makes Scala think he is entitled to overturn judicial precedent. I intend on watching carefully Roberts' confirmation hearings, but from what I've read so far he sounds okay, considering what we might have gotten out of Bush.

[Gabi Hayes]

4. if, as this link, and the preceding posts, are on target

WHY is he such a fricking LIAR about his ties to Jeb and the Federalist Society?

huh?

and why won't he tell the chimp to release his records as ASG?

huh?

sorta the Albert Speer of the 43d Reich?

[JDPriestly]

5. Bush is going to appoint a conservative

who is secretive because Bush is conservative and secretive and likes people who are conservative and secretive. Congress should be given all the documents, but Bush is using his refusal to release documents on various things including Cheney's meetings on energy planning, Bolton's documents, the Abu Ghraib photos and now Roberts' writings to demonstrate his power. We don't know whether Roberts is refusing to release those documents or whether that is just the Bush administration's decision. As for Roberts' affiliation with the Federalist Society, it is unlikely that Bush is going to nominate anyone to the Supreme Court who isn't affiliated with that group. I don't know why Roberts omitted his affiliation in his documents.