The New York Times has an editorial fretting about the possibility that former solictors general now representing "big business" before the Supreme Court will receive some kind of unfair favorable treatment from the justices. There's no evidence in the editorial that any of them, or their clients, have received such favorable treatment. There's no concern expressed in the editorial that the solicitors general were getting unfair favorable treatment when they were representing the government. And when one of these same former solicitors general was representing not business but proponents of same-sex marriage in California, the Times seemed to have no problem at all with it.
NYT on Solicitors General