Maybe, but paying attention to this crap on Roberts is foolish.
Look at the key quotes in the article..
"John probably didn't recall [the case] because he didn't play as large a role in it as he did in others," Smith said Wednesday. "I'm sure John has a record somewhere of every case he ever argued, and Romer he did not argue. So he probably would have remembered it less.""
She said he gave her advice in two areas that were "absolutely crucial." "He said you have to be able to count and know where your votes are coming from. And the other was that you absolutely have to be on top of why and where and how the state court had ruled in this case," Dubofsky said.
The guy gave some collegial advice, yet they make it look like he got Romer turned over...fcol.
This is part of a ploy, to weaken Roberts right Flank, so when he is attacked from the left, his support is weak.
And Everybody's Resident Genius, ElRushbo, took it hook line and Sinker.
I smelled Dubofsky's overstating Roberts role in the case from the beginning, the Times is probably just hoping that he was integral in winning the case (when he really had almost nothing to do with it)
Again, this latest dustup has *helped* Roberts among liberals who now recognize that he will probably be another Souter...thus ensuring his confirmation The GOP majority will never stand up for principle, so you don't have to worry about an attack on the "right flank." Won't happen! After all, these are the same Senate "conservatives" who loyally supported Bush's proposals for creased farm subsidies, transportation boondogles, and socialized medicine via prescription drugs.