Many are defending Roberts because he was in dissent in Windsor. But he allowed Windsor to be heard when it was unnecessary:
Scalia went after the jurisdictional question with his customary laser. So “hungry” were the five members of the majority to pontificate about the merits of same-sex marriage, he wrote, that they skipped blithely over “a technicality of little interest to anyone except the people of We the People” — namely, that there was no case or controversy for the high court to resolve in Windsor. The “United States” of the case’s title agreed with the result at the appeals-court and district-court levels, which were both in Windsor’s favor. The plaintiff had long since been made whole. So what, Scalia asked, “are we doing here?”
The majority was showboating its enlightenment, that’s what.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/352269/roe-any-other-name-mona-charen
Thanks for the response.
I posted that comment every time and through several cycles in FR when I saw that subject come up. Hoping it draws a discussion. The problem with FR is it’s being used like twitter with a bunch of of one and two line “Look at me !” tweetings that sadly diminishes the value of this format because it’s mostly chest pounding . Containing no additional supplemental information or talking points that can be used to advance the cause.