It does, and it has been known to get things absolutely wrong, as it demonstrated when it tried to sit on the Lewinsky story (thanks to Drudge for getting it out), but this story is not disputed because it can be backed up by the record and it's clear Roberts did it eagerly. That indicates at leasta higher tolerance of judicial activism than we ought to be supporting.
And it's not as if there weren't better choices, even putting aside suggestions like Keyes and Phillips's suggestion of Judge Roy Moore. Harvie Wilkinson,Michael Luttig, Edith Jones, or Samuel Alito would have been better picks. Heck, Estrada would have been a better pick and better politics too.
Roberts gave six hours of consultation to a fellow attorney from his law firm that was working on a pro bono case.
Nobody has provided the specific details regarding the nature of the consultation.
To describe his participation as "eagerly" is trollish.
If you are trying to drive a wedge between the freepers you need better proof.