Gasp! He's a ... lawyer!

The Washington Post and other suited jackals are breathlessly announcing that John Roberts, in his capacity as a government lawyer, offered advice to his employer! The employer in question was the Reagan administration, and the subject was Supreme Couurt rulings on school prayer.

WASHINGTON -- As a young government attorney, John Roberts advised the White House to support congressional efforts to allow school prayer, arguing that a Supreme Court ruling striking down the practice "seems indefensible."

In a Nov. 21, 1985 memo released Monday by the National Archives, Roberts was responding to a move by Congress to permit "group silent prayer or reflection in public schools." He said he would not object if Justice Department officials announced that President Reagan had no formal role in passing an amendment to that effect, but said he would support such a move ...

Earlier, in a June 4, 1985 memo, Roberts argued that White House officials could exploit the Supreme Court's decision prohibiting school prayer. While justices struck down an Alabama statute mandating a one-minute moment of silence, "careful analysis shows" it was on technical grounds, he said.

Roberts said that a majority of justices would allow a similar law if it were worded more carefully to avoid expressing a religious purpose behind the measure.

The Alabama law was struck down because of the "peculiarities of the particular legislative history, not because of any inherent constitutional flaw in moment of silence statutes," Roberts wrote in a memo to Fielding regarding the Supreme Court decision in Wallace vs. Jaffree.

Notice what the dog did not do in the night. Nowhere is it alleged that Roberts actually believed that a school prayer amendment should be passed. He told his bosses that it could be done, and how. It was Ronaldus Magnus that wanted the amendment passed, and it was up to the staff of lawyers, of which Roberts was one of the most junior, to figure out how. His personal opinion was neither asked nor wanted.

Call me crazy, but if I were retaining a lawyer, I'd want him to figure out how to do what I wanted done. If he construed his job to mean that I was asking whether I should do it, I'd fire his hiney and hire a lawyer who would follow his client's instructions.

Oh, but there's more. Slipped in as a caption to his mug photo is this little gem:

Roberts once offered the National Mining Association unpaid advice on how to intervene in other people's court cases. Two years later he was hired by the group. As a government lawyer, private attorney and federal appeals judge, Roberts has become involved in environmental issues. His critics say Roberts tended generally to side with the views of industry.

Once again, let's look at the words. He gave unpaid advice once. We don't know under what circumstances. Maybe the wife of one of the association's members played golf with Mrs. Roberts' cleaning lady's nephew. Maybe some Mining Association bigwig won it from him in a poker game. Or maybe it was even because the Mining Association was about to get severely and unjustly hosed in some case, and Roberts was helping out an underdog. We just don't know.

Perhaps in the Bluelands, giving something away is tantamount to blind allegiance, but in the world I live in, there's nothing incriminating about having given free advice to somebody, even a (legitimate) business organization. And what it this "His critics say..."? Well, duh! What, did you expect them to talk about how he helps little old ladies across the street? They're critics, for pete's sake! Now if his supporters were bragging on his avarice and prostituted conscience, that would be cause for concern.

So far, all that the yapping pekineses on the left have been able to come up with is that John Roberts was a lawyer who did what he was paid to do and kept his trap shut. If that's all the dirt they can find on him, then they're really desperate.

Meanwhile, I'll wait to see what he does say. God willing, it'll be said from the bench.