Reply #22: It was, to all appearances, a point of law.

[Igel]

He did not argue in support of those who committed various forms of violence. The defendants had lawyers that argued in support of thoe who committed violence.

Roberts argued in support of reading the law a certain way--the way it had been intended, and mostly accepted to mean, for 120 years or so--in order to avoid setting a bad precedent that would have had bad implications. Sometimes arguments in court aren't about people in the concrete, i.e., the people sitting in the courtroom, but about the law and people 5 or 25 years later.

The baddies were already going to jail. And, a couple of years later, a law was put into place that specifically addressed the issue.