I was particularly fascinated by his claim that three U.S. Supreme Court justices ruled "unanimously for Shakespeare and against the Earl of Oxford" in a 1987 moot court case.
Shapiro has, at best, oversimplified the facts. Justice William Brennan, the senior justice on the case, did not rule on whether Shakespeare actually wrote the plays; he simply ruled that the Earl of Oxford did not meet the burden of proof required under the law. Justice Harry Blackmun agreed, but then added, "That's the legal answer. Whether it is the correct one causes me greater doubt." Justice John Paul Stevens went even further, saying, "I have lingering concerns. . . . You can't help but have these gnawing doubts that this great author may perhaps have been someone else."
I would hardly characterize these as opinions "unanimously for Shakespeare and against the Earl of Oxford."
Shapiro goes on to suggest that it was "obvious" that the justices found against Oxford because he "died in 1604, [and] he could not have written . . . 10 or so plays." In fact, historians do not know the precise dating of any of the plays; they only make best guesses.
Shapiro's piece culminates in an attack claiming that our film does a disservice to Shakespeare's legacy and imagination. Setting aside that we haven't yet finished shooting our film (and one must therefore assume that Shapiro hasn't seen it), I would say we aspire to do quite the opposite.