David Letterman explains why conservatives become liberals on the SCOTUS

[xray s]

Letterman had talking empty bobblehead Brain Williams on tonight. Of course, Williams is spewing all the Republican talking points praising Roberts. Williams also mentioned that there have been many cases of conservatives being appointed to the SCOTUS that become "flaming liberals" once they are there.

To which Dave responded "That awareness comes from experience"

THANKS DAVE!!!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[CAG]

1. there's a "fair and balanced" news anchor for you...

only the word "librul" has an derogatory adjective, of course, not conservative.

[Broken_Hero]

2. damn.

I wish i would have watched letterman tonight, dave summed it up the best/short way possible, experience, which means lack of Naiveity....

[JDPriestly]

3. Actually, it may be because

they are no longer paid to be conservative. Once the corporate client and the law firm employer is out of the picture, the justices start to think about things for themselves. Also, the case load at the Supreme Court is very broad and may bring the justices into contact with realities that they knew nothing about before joining the SC. Roberts, for example, has clearly led a very sheltered life. He has worked for law firms that primarily serve corporate clients. I know that life. Everything around you affirms the corporate point of view. It is the true ivory tower.

I would like to explain something about lawyers. A lawyer has an ethical duty to represent his or her client. In so doing, the lawyer sets his or her own opinions and attitudes aside. When you work for a big firm, you pretty much serve the clients of the firm regardless of your personal opinions. You would be surprised at how many corporate lawyers are liberal Democrats.

Here is how it works. Our legal system is adversarial. It is based on the theory that the best way to determine the truth and to resolve disputes is to present the best arguments and evidence to the triers of law and fact (the judge - law, and the judge or jury -facts) as capably and persuasively as possible and then see which side prevails. The lawyer's job in that process is to be an effective voice for his or her client. A lawyer may write a brief on behalf of a client that expresses legal theories and ideas with which the lawyer is not personally in agreement. That is the defense attorney's job. Every defendant, even the guilty, even the child molester, even the despicable murderer, deserves the assistance of a lawyer. The lawyer must be honest with the court, but otherwise is bound to serve the client's interests, not his or her own. Remember Johnny Cochran. He is a good example of a defense attorney who loyally served his clients regardless of what they had done. If you were in trouble, you would want and deserve no less, regardless of whether you were accused of a criminal or civil wrong. So, just the fact that Roberts or some other lawyer wrote something in a brief or something filed with a court does not mean that he is wedded to that idea or necessarily agrees with it. He was doing his job, arguing the point of view that was favorable to his client. I know this is very confusing to nonlawyers. But, you must understand that the lawyer's ethical duty, when acting in the capacity of a lawyer, is to be loyal to his or her client, not to be loyal to him- or herself. That does not mean that Roberts isn't truly a very conservative person politically. It means he can change as so many of his predecessors on the court have. It is unlikely that he will veer very far from the viewpoints he has embraced thus far, but it could happen. Life is full of surprises.

[VOX]

4. "bobblehead Brain Williams"-- perfect description!!!

Well done, xray s! :thumbsup: