Citizen Journal

A second point concerns the blather we're going to hear about positions Roberts took as Solicitor General (and elsewhere). For starters, attacking a judicial candidate on the basis of positions advocated on behalf of clients reflects a misunderstanding (best case) about courts, the law and politics. Don't ask how I remember this, but the Los Angeles County Bar summed it up in 2003:

...neither the identity of a lawyer's clients nor the zealous advocacy of their causes necessarily provides any insight into the lawyer's personal beliefs, nor do they necessarily provide any indication of how a nominee may view a particular case presented to him or her as a judge. Indeed, representing clients whose views we may disagree with comes with the territory for many attorneys.

As an underling to the Solicitor General, Roberts had a client, too; in this respect his job was no different than private law practice. His client just happened to be the President of the United States, and so his responsibilities touched upon politically-charged issues, rather than insurance coverage, divorce, contracts and the likes. But Roberts' job was, simply, to advocate his client's position. Again, anyone who argues otherwise misunderstands (again, best case).