Washington Post on John Roberts

It has recently come to my attention that the Washington Post has had a great set of articles on John Roberts. The first article details his education and recollects John Roberts the scholar and thinker. Most interesting is what John Roberts the high school student was like. He went to an all boys school that was for the most part, completely insulated from the outside world. While race riots and civil strife spread across the country, Roberts contemplated the merits (or demerits) of coeducation:

During his junior year of high school, he criticized the prospect of coeducation in the student newspaper, foreshadowing by many years his criticism as a federal lawyer of intervention in gender discrimination cases.

"The argument that girls will provide a new viewpoint in the classroom is probably valid, although I certainly can't imagine what points will be viewed," he wrote in the newspaper, the Torch. He said he would not want "the football team waiting on the sidelines for practice while the girls finish their field hockey or whatever. Game times should be interesting, too. Imagine the five cheerleaders on the sidelines, with block 'L's' on their chests, screaming 'Give me a 'L.' Give me a break!"

Also, interesting is that Roberts, who focused on Renaissance intellectual history in college, initially wanted to get a PhD in history until his father allegedly told him, "Real men study law." Slate does a hilarious spoof on this statement, pointing out the level of manliness Harvard law is renown for.

But if that Washington Post article stressed the unerring confidence Roberts had in his beliefs, whether they be in coeducation or in his intended course of study at Harvard, today the Washington Post chronicled his post-Law School work as one of the countries best appellate lawyers. This Roberts comes off as a scholar of the law who would place himself in the shoes of every one of his clients, regardless of their political persuasion. Also interesting about this article is the unique work of appellate lawyers (got me interested in it at least).

So all-in-all we are left with a very conflicted view of Roberts, a man who could be an understanding moderate, like the one who represented gays before the Supreme Court. Or he could become an entirely different beast, the one who has always been sure of his conservatism regardless of his location, friends, or work. Regardless of who he ends up becoming, it is clear that he that he will impress us all in his confirmation hearings; he has had lots of practice with stuff like this.

-Mr. Alec