JUDGE ROBERTS STILL A FUZZ FOR CONSERVATIVES
J. Grant Swank, Jr.
Both conservatives and liberals are trying to figure out just who Supreme Court nominee John Roberts really is. Will the true Roberts please stand up?
Roberts has done some pro bono, that is, "free" work on some liberal cases. But does that add up to give conservatives the shakes? Time will tell. In the meantime, the reasoning could very well be that most of the pro bono cases coming before lawyers are in the liberal category.
To do their good time in pro bono cases, conservative lawyers sometimes are pressed to take on liberal cases just to see through their quota. Could that be the situation with Roberts?
Could be. Time will tell.
In the meantime, conservatives look back at former US President Ronald Reagan’s interview with Sandra Day O’Connor. Without asking her one question about politics — instead spending time chit chatting man to lady — Reagan appointed her to the highest court in the land. She proved a liberal. It has been posited that Reagan’s appointment of O’Connor was his biggest mistake. Makes sense to me.
And as for David Souter, give the conservatives the nay-sign on him. He was thought to help out the conservatives but instead has gone liberal more times than not.
What will Roberts do?
He is as unpredictable as ever. Talk about fuzz in the future, Roberts is it. Liberals are scared to death that they’ve got a conservative in liberal cloth. Conservatives are out of their heads concluding that they’ve got a liberal in conservative cloth.
No one knows but Roberts. That’s for certain.
Yes, Roberts did give free legal aid to assist a prisoner on death row. Does that make him a liberal? Well, it was only 25 hours of legal counsel as part of his pro bono stint. So what does that tell us? Not much.
He’s helped the poor. He’s given advice to gays. He’s walked with the forgotten and sidelined. So what does that say about Roberts? Nothing, actually, except that on occasion he’s done work to help the poor, homosexuals and the scuff-abouts who needed some legal help at some time in Roberts’ past.
Maybe he’s a good heart who likes to lift others up when they’re down — regardless of their category. Maybe he was simply seeing through his pro bono quota.
Could very well be. Time will tell.
Both conservatives and liberals are trying to figure out just who Supreme Court nominee John Roberts really is. Will the true Roberts please stand up?
Roberts has done some pro bono, that is, "free" work on some liberal cases. But does that add up to give conservatives the shakes? Time will tell. In the meantime, the reasoning could very well be that most of the pro bono cases coming before lawyers are in the liberal category.
To do their good time in pro bono cases, conservative lawyers sometimes are pressed to take on liberal cases just to see through their quota. Could that be the situation with Roberts?
Could be. Time will tell.
In the meantime, conservatives look back at former US President Ronald Reagan’s interview with Sandra Day O’Connor. Without asking her one question about politics — instead spending time chit chatting man to lady — Reagan appointed her to the highest court in the land. She proved a liberal. It has been posited that Reagan’s appointment of O’Connor was his biggest mistake. Makes sense to me.
And as for David Souter, give the conservatives the nay-sign on him. He was thought to help out the conservatives but instead has gone liberal more times than not.
What will Roberts do?
He is as unpredictable as ever. Talk about fuzz in the future, Roberts is it. Liberals are scared to death that they’ve got a conservative in liberal cloth. Conservatives are out of their heads concluding that they’ve got a liberal in conservative cloth.
No one knows but Roberts. That’s for certain.
Yes, Roberts did give free legal aid to assist a prisoner on death row. Does that make him a liberal? Well, it was only 25 hours of legal counsel as part of his pro bono stint. So what does that tell us? Not much.
He’s helped the poor. He’s given advice to gays. He’s walked with the forgotten and sidelined. So what does that say about Roberts? Nothing, actually, except that on occasion he’s done work to help the poor, homosexuals and the scuff-abouts who needed some legal help at some time in Roberts’ past.
Maybe he’s a good heart who likes to lift others up when they’re down — regardless of their category. Maybe he was simply seeing through his pro bono quota.
Could very well be. Time will tell.
<< Home