The Clash of Two Young Lawyers

My post about Deval Patrick's keynote speech to the New Democracy Coalition's 40th Anniversary teach-in on the Voting Rights Act has stirred a lot of discussion not only in Massachusetts, but the greater blogosphere.

First, Michael Wilcox, who was present for the speech, noted in a comment, that "What you can't tell from the transcript is that Deval got a standing ovation at the end." Over at his blog, Michael noted the contrast between the life and values of Deval Patrick and John Roberts, president Bush's nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court:

"Mr. Patrick spoke eloquently of the importance and the history of this landmark legislation, and the role he had in helping defend it as a young lawyer working for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. I was struck by the contrast to what I had just read about the work done around this issue by another lawyer, of about the same age, who was working on the other side of the road. [see MSNBC and The New York Times]

"John Roberts, the current nominee for a Supreme Court seat, was working to quash renewal of certain provisions of the Act, and also to defeat a proposed new provision (a response to an unfavorable Supreme Court interpretation). The new provision would make it explicit that discrimination occurred when voting rights were denied, with no burden of proof that the denial was intentional. As Vernon Jordan had declared in a NY Times Op-Ed piece, 'Intent to discriminate is impossible to prove.' Roberts was keen on fighting back, and drafted a response for AG William French Smith, warning that the bill would 'gradually lead to a system of proportional representation based on race or minority language status.'"

Then, conversation went national when a diarist on The Daily Kos, the most popular political blog, picked up the story and in a widely read piece noted "the clash of two young lawyers, John Roberts vs. Deval Patrick." A difference, diarist Troutfishing notes, that couldn't be more stark.