Parsing Roberts
In the New York Times today, Anne Kornblut informs us that based on memos, briefs, and other documents, John Roberts is a strict grammarian, a former spelling bee champ and a fastidious editor of legal briefs. And it seems that not only is Roberts meticulous when it comes to grammar and punctuation, but word choice as well.
David Garrow, a professor at Emory Law School in Atlanta, said: "It has been a consistently striking feature again and again - in even the very sort of informal memos that it's hard to imagine he ever thought someone would be reading 20 years later - that there is this very demanding precision, but it's not just grammatical. He is also extremely precise and demanding in his word usage."
Precision is all well and good - in fact, it's an admirable trait, particularly in a judge - but the very precision Kornblut raves about raises another issue entirely.
When the documents were first handed over, some of the things Roberts had written raised more than a few eyebrows. There was his reference to the "so-called 'right to privacy'" in a 1981 memo. There was Roberts's opposition to affirmative action, which he felt promoted "offensive preferences" based on race and gender.
Or, when Roberts wrote in reference to an interview President Reagan had with Spanish Today: "I think this audience would be pleased that we are trying to grant legal status to their illegal amigos."
And of course: "Some might question whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good, but I suppose that is for the judges to decide."
To name a few.
When these pearls of wisdom were made public a few weeks ago, the Right laughed them off, attributing them to Roberts' sense of humor. But if Roberts chooses his words as carefully as Garrow suggests, it suggests that these were not mere slips or attempts at humor, but clear indicators of who Roberts's character.
Given some of the alarming and offensive things found in the documents, it is vital that the Senate call upon Roberts to answer for them when confirmation hearings begin next month. The bottom line is, Roberts knew exactly what he was doing. He made those comments for a reason. And now it's up to the Senate to find out what those reasons are.
David Garrow, a professor at Emory Law School in Atlanta, said: "It has been a consistently striking feature again and again - in even the very sort of informal memos that it's hard to imagine he ever thought someone would be reading 20 years later - that there is this very demanding precision, but it's not just grammatical. He is also extremely precise and demanding in his word usage."
Precision is all well and good - in fact, it's an admirable trait, particularly in a judge - but the very precision Kornblut raves about raises another issue entirely.
When the documents were first handed over, some of the things Roberts had written raised more than a few eyebrows. There was his reference to the "so-called 'right to privacy'" in a 1981 memo. There was Roberts's opposition to affirmative action, which he felt promoted "offensive preferences" based on race and gender.
Or, when Roberts wrote in reference to an interview President Reagan had with Spanish Today: "I think this audience would be pleased that we are trying to grant legal status to their illegal amigos."
And of course: "Some might question whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good, but I suppose that is for the judges to decide."
To name a few.
When these pearls of wisdom were made public a few weeks ago, the Right laughed them off, attributing them to Roberts' sense of humor. But if Roberts chooses his words as carefully as Garrow suggests, it suggests that these were not mere slips or attempts at humor, but clear indicators of who Roberts's character.
Given some of the alarming and offensive things found in the documents, it is vital that the Senate call upon Roberts to answer for them when confirmation hearings begin next month. The bottom line is, Roberts knew exactly what he was doing. He made those comments for a reason. And now it's up to the Senate to find out what those reasons are.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< E-Liberal Home