The topic he's coming to converse with Mike Johnson might be something all together different than the citizenship issue. I was just thinking how, generally, there are cases that come up on their own where lawyers take an interest in representing pro bono because the results will favor another client of their or even themselves.
For example, and this is a true story, there was a local property rights lawyer who tried to assemble a group of us mutts so we could help him in changing the local and state laws. He gave us three examples. One of them involved helping ordinary people who just want to develop their lands but they can't do it because of the wetland laws. What he wanted us to do is scour newspapers to come up with homeowners who were having these problems, then he would sweep in and help them with a pro bono case.
Never went back after that because I could see right through him. See, the guy was also a commercial developer who happened to butt heads with the SJWMD (Water district) because he didn't believe that government should interfere with a private property owner's right to develop land. What he had to gain was obvious. If he could protect the rights of an ordinary homeowner, then whatever gain he made in changing the law, would also apply to him.
Because of that experience I am bitter about the Dem activists in our community, because they are no where as focused and committed in fighting back through the courts. (Well, until now, of course since it's the only option left). Before, what they did was get involved after that fact, when it really is too late to do anything about the situation. They always seem to wait for the perfect case, fearing that a bad case will just set a precedent that will be harder to overturn later. Probably true, but they should try anyways.
Now, what does this have to do with Clarence Thomas? Imagine a Supreme Court justice sharing information so someone could willfully create a case that has all the legal prongs that would make it possible to convince the other conservatives on the court? It only takes one good case to set precedent.
= new reply since forum marked as read