I am not a lawyer. Of course, when I was a child, my family called me, "they lawyer" because I was a highly verbal child. And, for a while, I even thought I might become a lawyer.
But at about age 13, I knew I wanted to be a psychologist. Don't ask me how; I just knew.
Anyway, not becoming a lawyer was the best break I ever got. Oh, I know lots of lawyers make lots of money, but watching John Roberts testify in day three of his Senate confirmation hearings today reminded me why it was best for me to go another direction.
Roberts seems a remarkable person. I have no idea of how he'll perform as Chief Justice, but he's clearly someone who engenders confidence in his equanimity and fairness. When asked about his personal opinions, he demurs in the most logical way possible: "it wouldn't be right for me to give those who might appeatr before the Court in the future the impression that I'd already made up my mind..."
How can you argue with that?
Me, I'd be tempted to blurt out: "but, having said that, I think..." Somehow, I'd find a way to tip my hand and give others reason to question, doubt, refute, or rebuke.
I guess that's why I like being a blogger better than being a lawyer. My opinions here can be my own. I don't have to worry about the ideas my client wants me to convince others of; I have no clients here, only myself.
And, these ideas can never come back to haunt me, because I'd tell anyone what I believe (at least that day!) letting the chips tumble as chips will.
But John Roberts (and his fellows) have to be more circumspect, more reserved, more judicial. Because the decisions he'll have to make shouldn't be tainted by some idiotic thing he wrote in the heat of the moment on his blog one day.
I recommend his temperament for his position much more than I'd recommend mine. I'm just not flexible enough to be a lawyer, and certainly not flexible enough to be a judge.
Comments