Home > Writing > Judge Roberts, grammarian


Judge Roberts, grammarian

He may be a right-wing ideologue with a hidden agenda to roll back many of the liberal-leaning decisions the U.S. Supreme court has made during the last 50 years.

He may be may be a moderate with great respect for the law, the Constitution and precedent.

No one has yet accused him of being a liberal in conservative's clothing, but with Supreme Court nominees, you never know.

But whatever he is, John Roberts is a grammarian.

And that should give us other grammarians -- no matter what our political leanings -- some comfort.

The New York Times, in an article by Anne Kornblut published earlier this week (In Re Grammar, Roberts's Stance is Crystal Clear), reports that an examination of many of the briefs and memos that Roberts has written over the years shows he is extremely precise in his use of the language -- and that he demands such precision of others.

Roberts does not hestitate to correct or critique the language used by his colleagues.

A cheerfully ruthless copy editor over the years, Judge Roberts has demanded verbal rigor from his colleagues and subordinates, refusing to tolerate the slightest grammatical slip, and boasting an exceptional vocabulary and command of literature himself.

The article quotes a former law firm colleague as saying that very little got by Roberts' editing pencil, even Neil Armstrong's famous line when first setting foot on the moon in 1969. Another colleague had quoted it (as it is commonly quoted): "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." Roberts remembered it differently and told him so. "It is my recollection that he actually said 'one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind,' but the 'a' was somewhat garbled in transmission. Without the 'a,' the phrase makes no sense."

And as a good grammarian, Roberts can detect flaws that go beyond the writing.

In a memorandum the next year, responding to a letter from David T. Willard, an elementary school superintendent in Illinois who opposed the administration's education policies, Mr. Roberts again concluded that no legal issues needed to be addressed by the White House counsel. But he took the opportunity to note, "The letter is very sarcastic, although Willard inadvertently proves our point about the quality of public education by incorrectly using 'affect' for 'effect.' "

Roberts himself was being a bit sarcastic, but what's the fun of being a good grammarian for if you can't use a little sarcasm occasionally?

Jim Stovall (Posted Seot. 1, 2005)



About JPROF.com | Who is JPROF? | Contact us
All of the words and images on this site are copyrighted and may not be used without the permission.
Copyright © Jim Stovall 2005
FreeFind.com provides search technology for this website.