>>>>It's real easy for armchair quarterbacks ...
I happen to believe America is in the middle of a culture war against the forces of liberalism. And as an American I have every right to speak out against what I believe was a wrongheaded move by John Roberts.
Your opposition was a given before it was announced.
Reagan man ... your assumption is incorrect ... Roberts didn't choose this as a pro bono case. Nor did he work on it. Roberts at the time was with Hogan and Hartson, a 1000 (yes, one THOUSAND) lawyer firm. They have an entire department that takes on pro bono cases of all kinds. As the resident expert on Supreme Court appeals, Roberts reviewed that department's work, and gave advice on writing winning briefs and presentations. He neither wrote nor presented.
Think of it as a law professor teaching those who will be taught .. in this case, his advice to the Hogan and Hartson pro bono team helped them to win. Down the line they could win another argument you and I like by following the same advice.
Conservatives are being fooled into believing his advice to the team in this case actually represented his active involvement or support. His "support" was technical and on process.
What is dangerous here is the LA Slimes writing up this story so that conservatives jump on the band wagon without a clue of what the story is really about, much less how huge law firms operate, or how cases are conducted before the Supreme Court. And I thought conservatives were smart.
"You need to get up to speed. The boss demanded nothing. This was pro bono work. Roberts should have refused to get involved. It was a bad decision on his part. Period. "
It was pro-bono work for the Law Firm, not for Roberts.
He was assigned . It is a fact that one must accept assigned cases in a Law Firm, or be shown the door.
That means one would never get hired by any firm ever again.