Important Roberts Meme

[bonemachine]

OK, I've trapped one of my cleverer right wing opponents with this, and I think it's important to look at:

The forst point, as I pushed it is like so:

"I know that, as an attorney, I certainly wouldn't accept cases arguing things which I strongly disagreed with. For example, as someone who is pro-choice, I certainly wouldn't take a case that invovled arguing against Roe v. Wade

I'm not an attorney. But, I'd like to think that, regardless of my profession, I'd put my morals and scruples above the desires of my employer, and if that were not possible, to find a new employer. Anyone who would suborn their morals in favor of the almighty dollar should not be in consideration for a position on the highest court in the land, wouldn't you agree?"

The response I got was one I expected, based on the talking points I have seen:
" I agree that morals and scruples supercede money. I reject your insinuation that Roberts puts money first. Everything that I hear about Roberts is that he intelligent, and highly principled with a superlative moral background."

At this point, I realized that I had gotten a bite on my bait. I responded:

" I did not insinuate that Roberts puts money first; I was arguing that the cases Roberts chose to accept DO reflect his personal opinions. The persons who were insinuating what you are suggesting were those who argue that the cases he took do not reflect on him (SweetsWitch was one).

I do believe that he is anti RvW, and not that he actually is in favor of it but argued against it in front of the Supreme Court for money."


The response I got was very telling:

" Roberts works for money as we all do, but he was representing the President of the US, and from everything I hear about him, the commitment to the government was more important to him than the money he earned. I’ll bet he takes a huge cut in pay when he puts on the SC gowns."

Clearly, the bait had been taken, and the hook was sunk. Either Roberts is anti RvW, or argued against it for pay. The tack I took allows for enough rope to hang the opponent, and I think it can work on a larger basis. I'd love to have some feedback.

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. Well he certainly is willing to volunteer

for causes he believes in, like helping Jeb Bush figure out ways NOT TO COUNT the votes and how to get George selected President. He did that one for free.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

2. By your logic,

finding a public defender would be pretty damned tough.

Either the public defender is pro-murderer/rapist/child molester or argued to be paid for defending these individuals.

The legal profession doesn't work this way.

[bonemachine]

5. I've heard this one too...

I'd argue that there is a significant difference between arguing as a defense attorney in a criminal case and arguing a case before the Supreme Court...

[firefox]

3. Roberts the corporate shill

He is a fascist chosen by fascists. See this excellent thread- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4173084

[MrBenchley]

4. Here's another...

Roberts reversed a decision in which tortured American POWs won damages from Iraq, which had tortured them. His basis for doing so was not any law or written public order, but the informally expressed opinion of the White House that Iraq needed to be protected financially from paying the damages...although those damages represented a tiny fraction of the money missing in Iraq through incompetence, graft and fraud.

[bonemachine]

6. Also

It's not like we aren't already using the cases that Roberts used as evidence against him (for example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/05/07/23_roberts.html). If we're going to do that, we need to have some response to those who are going to say that we can't hold what he did as a lawyer against him....