Roberts reveals his inner Souter
In his pro bono work for gay rights groups. Or is it just a sneaky tactic to throw progressives off stride? The L.A. Times article that is creating all this confusion suggests it's just lawyer-ing as usual: "Roberts' work on behalf of gay rights activists, whose cause is anathema to many conservatives, appears to illustrate his allegiance to the credo of the legal profession: to zealously represent the interests of the client, whoever it might be."
Folks over at Daily Kos think that's "bullcrap":
Lawyers - especially those with a lot of seniority - get to choose where they work and whom they work for. You don't wanna represent big corporate polluters? Then you don't work at a firm which represents those kinds of companies. And so on. Not every attorney always has this kind of flexibility, but most do, and Roberts certainly did.
This is especially true of pro bono matters, where even the most junior of associates at even the biggest firms have a choice of projects they work on. The pro bono clients a lawyer takes on can really say a lot about him or her. (Not necessarily, but they sure can.) So hey, I'm glad Roberts helped out the good guys in this case. [LINK]The post goes on to point out one of the upsides of all this: Roberts may now become a target for the Christian right. Isn't it nice when bigotry works for us?