My point is just this -- words have lost all meaning in this debate. Dobson wants judges who will abide by the Constitution, but laments the Constitutionally mandated role for judges. The FRC calls a court "activist" for deferring to the California legislature. And, at bottom, the Religiously Correct see themselves as victims despite having firm control over all levers of government. It makes me worry about what would happen if the Religiously Correct understood how firmly in charge they are. What is it that they want that Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, and George Bush won't put into law?
What do you think about Roberts doing pro-bono work for a gay case - Romer v Evans?
Romer (1996), which upheld an injunction barring the enforcement of a Colorado constitutional amendment denying homosexuals any protection from discrimination, is an important equal protection case. Roberts apparently contributed his expertise behind the scenes.
I think this is one piece of the Roberts puzzle, but we won't know the whole picture for quite awhile.