You must be right. I only practiced law for 25 years with a lot of appellate work pro-bono work. Had I practiced for 30 years, I might understand them.
Frankly, I don't care about his personal beliefs. He could be a wiccan gay transvestite for all I care as long as he will interpret the constitution as it is, and not as he wishes it were.
Serious people don't do pro-bono work to advance bad constitutional law. Pro-bono is volunteer, for free, time that you contribute because it is a good thing to do. When you take on constitutional cases, you do them pro-bono to advance good constitutional law. Romer was very bad constitutional law.
--Frankly, I don't care about his personal beliefs. He could be a wiccan gay transvestite for all I care as long as he will interpret the constitution as it is, and not as he wishes it were.--
I knew I had made a mistake in saying "personal beliefs". I meant personal opinions.
Frankly I find it astonishing that you would not take a case as a lawyer that you had problems with. I thought lawyers acting as lawyers and lawyers acting as judges were two different things.
Yes, but Roberts did not take on the pro-bono work, the firm he worked for did. Roberts did not argue or write briefs, he simply reviewed briefs as a favor to his firm.