Can't help you there since you seem to be replying to a point I didn't make. I said all people hae a right to legal representation. I never said they all had a right to free representation but if a firm is doing pro bono work and a gifted atty has particular skills in an area of the law the litigant needs there is often a good match.
One, if one is to act as an adult, one must never make the perfect the enemy of the good. John Roberts may well have represented a gay rights group. Gay people do have rights and since the particulars of this matter have only been made known in the MSM one would be ill-advised to make that the last word on the subject.
I've yet to be convinced that Roberts represents the good.
John Roberts may well have represented a gay rights group.
He could have, but that's not the objection that's being raised. He's being criticized for helping prepare a case that was based on a very shoddy understanding of the law. Whose behalf he was doing it on is utterly irrelevant.