Geeky Chic

Much attention has been paid to the legal arguments that SCOTUS nominee
Johns Roberts made while working in Reagan’s solicitor general’s office
(most notably the footnote arguing for overturning Roe v. Wade in a
brief) and to his pro bono “advising” of gay rights groups in the Romer v. Evans case.  As with this NYT Week in Review piece,
I believe this attention is a bit misplaced (and fueled by the scarcity
of opinions from his brief stint on the DC Court of Appeals). 
Most of the time, unless the type of case is on the extreme end of the
moral repugnancy scale, lawyers are hired guns and willing to argue
both sides.  While interning for the government, I’ve defended
child molesters.  And in private practice, I drafted a pro-media
opinion piece in the MGM v. Grokster
case, and defended tenants in landlord-tenant cases (even though I
don’t have any peculiar sympathies on the tenant side).  Taken out
of context, this could create a skewed legal portrait of me, when I
feel that my heart lies with the work that I did at the EFF and Berkman
Center (work that I actively sought out and completed without any
monetary renumeration) and my odd fondness for the dormant commerce
clause.  Thus, when it comes time for my generation to step up to
the judicial plate (this time will come — one of my HLS section mates
clerked this year for Roberts, and is clerking next year for Kennedy),
I say look at our non-profit work/affiliations (to whom we donate time
and money) and our weblogs.

Edit: I find it funny that PETA is the group that would most vehemently oppose a Judge Chan nomination.