Hit piece? Are you saying that the facts are wrong?
No, I'm saying this is a hit piece.
Arguing against discrimination is a lot different than arguing for special rights. Unless you think gays have no rights at all.
Hit piece - look at the subject of the cae, not the "Gay" issue. It was a discrimination case straight and simple. Protecting citizens' rights is a good thing in a Judge even though some citizens happen to practice what I consider to be abominations. If he was prjudicial in this, he would be unfit. Many are trying to make it seem as if he did pro-bono work because the clients were homosexual, rather than the real issue of the case.
If I see a group of folks beating up a person just because they don't like that person, I will do my best to stop the aggressors, no matter what I may think of the victim.
given that Roberts was the primo appellate guy at his firm, I would imagine ALL their appellate briefs went by him for review .. but this was written solely to inflame conservatives who don't support the 'gay' agenda, to peel off support for Roberts because he once helped a team of lawyers present a case for that cause. I would like to see the entire list of cases he "worked behind the scenes" on by helping attorneys frame their arguments. This is a hit piece because they chose to focus on the one issue that would theoretically take support FROM Roberts and some conservatives are too stupid to see that.