I will reply to your post ..... perhaps you should read the entire opinion for Romer vs Evan, including the magnificent dissent by Scalia, who shredded Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion. Obviously the 3 conservative & constructionist SCOTUS justices (Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist) did not feel this Colorado amendment violated the 14th amendment. Bottom line is that Roberts was dead wrong for participating at all in this case Pro Bono or not, since the effect was to strike down Colorado's right to legislate their own laws, and instead the U.S. Supreme ends up legislating this from the bench. The natural outcome of this despised ruling is another despised activist ruling in Lawrence vs Texas. Roberts helped participate and set the stage for this despicable SCOTUS judicial activist ruling when he should have had a principled objection to overturning a legitimate state's amendment!
Read the entire Romer vs Evan....
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/romer.html
Great post. I hope that the conservative Senators take him to task during the hearings. And Roberts BETTER have good answers. No weasel words, just answers.
And yes, Roberts worked for the wrong side on this one. Excellent - the left has managed to find a single case on which Roberts worked for the wrong side. Apparently he did so primarily because he routinely agreed to requests to assist in Pro Bono cases. I see no compelling evidence here that he agreed with the position he supported, or that he would agree with it now. I am certain that he will not tell us now what his position is on this case, either way.
And no, I am not outraged that a Supreme Court nominee has some case in his past where he worked for the wrong side. I remain confident that there is high probability that Roberts will be an excellent judge, and serve this Republic and its constitution well.
There are never any guarantees in such matters. But Bush has shown excellent skills at picking people, especially for key slots, and has stated repeatedly that he is choosing justices who will respect the constitution, not legislate from the bench.
Roberts has taken the 'good' side in all but apparently this one case, over his entire career (if there were more such cases he took the 'wrong' side on, I am confident that the Left will inform us, in good time, as they continue to try to divide and conquer America). Others, including George W. Bush, Reinquist and Mark Levin, whose judgement I trust in such matters more than my own, have heartily endorsed Roberts, for both competence and judicial philosophy.
We have done the reasonably best we can do. Let us confirm Roberts, and await the next vacancy on the Court, to continue to recover this fine Republic from the damage that has been done.