July 21, 2005

"Always more focused more on the craftsmanship."

Here's another passage from that NYT article on Roberts. (It moderates that picture of Roberts' concern with style of substance, seen a couple posts ago.)
[Law school classmate] Galebach recalled that he was more politically outspoken than Judge Roberts ever was on campus. "From our time in law review, it wasn't like John was a gung-ho conservative," he said. "He wasn't active. He wasn't a gung-ho liberal on liberal causes. He was always more focused more on the craftsmanship" of the law.

Mr. Galebach said the fact that Judge Roberts's position at the law review was managing editor "tells a lot about John." He added: "Managing editor is the one who just makes sure everything is done to a high level of quality. It's the ultimate position of not injecting your own views, but allowing other people to reach high levels of scholarship."

Ah, yes! All you managing editor types! You know what that means.

(And I see that Roberts wrote a student piece in the Law Review on the Takings Clause. People concerned about Kelo might want to check that out.)

2 comments:

Beldar said...

Re "managing editor types":

In the distant days when I was a law review editor, there were no word processors yet, and we submitted manuscripts to the printer as they were prepared on typewriters with hand-written edits. Every change to the galleys cost us money if we couldn't establish that the change was required by a printer's error rather than our changing our collective minds.

Thus, our editorial board once had an hour-long meeting to debate whether the second comma in a "see, e.g.," citation should or should not be italicized; and whether, regardless of the rule we were to adopt, it was cost-effective to promote the prestige and reputation of the Texas Law Review by spending the money to change it if one of us (as opposed to the printer) had made the pre-galleys editing error. We concluded — per the position advocated by our editor-in-chief, who clerked for Justice Rehnquist the year after Judge Roberts did — that the second comma should indeed be italicized, and it was worth the money to fix it when necessary.

After the meeting, our managing editor (a definite "managing editor type") expressed her surprise to me that anyone could have argued the contrary position. "That's just so wrong!" she hissed. Grudges ensued that likely still have not been resolved.

alikarimbey said...

The letter is also interest, right?

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2005/07/20/national/20050721_NOMINEE_SLIDESHOW_7.html