Ok - when I try to keep perspective on politics, I always pit people with opposites. So think of it like this

Ruth Bader Ginsberg worked for the ACLU for years. Now, her detractors probably pasted every single and wide ranging ACLU legal position as her own. Would that be a reasonable thing to do?

Stephen Breyer was legal counsel for Sen. Kennedy. Does this translate into all of his work with Kennedy as his own judicial philosophy?

Stephen Breyer wrote the unfavorable opinion against us in last year's Internet porn free speech case which effectively scuttled COPA. (this is the most recent SC desicion about our business) I guess if you want to think back about this then: that means that Our Lobby, the Adult Publisher and Webmaster Lobby, should have taken out ads and raised awareness AGAINST Stephen Breyer during his nomination?

I suspect that what actually happened was folks sent hefty checks to Clinton/Gore and People For The American Way. (not you Squirt... I'm sloppily painting with that convenient broad brush again )

That is because he was appointed by the Good Guys.

The Right will assert that Ruth Bader Ginsberg wants to viciously kill all unborn babies, while the Left will assert that John Roberts is a neanderthal bigot and chomping at the bit to "turn back the clock on all of our civil rights." Look at the sizes of PForTheAmericanWay or MoveOn or Human Rights Campaign or the Family Research Council - that is big moneymaking business.

Steve

PS: To address your very nice writings - I just don't find a big problem with Roberts. He seems like a moderate conservative. That's about it. And the fact that he played a big part in a landmark gay rights case shows he's got good senses. The bad things I was looking for in an appointee are idealogues like Robert Bork, or a politician who would be inclined to let the Legislative Branch pass laws willy nilly.