Problem with that theory is that highly principled people do not "game" the system that way. Only highly ambitious people do that, and they are rarely driven by principles.
That's not who we need on the Sup Ct.
many judges did pro bono work for guardian ad litem programs by providing lawyer representation for children in trouble.
No need to cross to the ACLU dark side.
Based on much of the comentary that is being "fleshed out" piece by slow piece is that his help was not case specific and more in line with general lawyer training.
Does anyone have the bio of the lawyer who is claiming "crucial help"?