Pro bono isn't always a choice.
My time spent at Ayuda, a legal aid clinic here in Washington, was some of the most valuable time that I spent as a law student and as a lawyer I volunteered at Ayuda, in the office, on a regular basis, and I did everything from fingerprinting and interviewing persons of Hispanic origin who entered the country without inspection and who were seeking work authorization permits when I got my law degree and my license to practice here in the District of Columbia, I represented several immigrants who had entered without inspection.
In fact, my first case as a trial lawyer while I was at Skadden Arps was a pro bono case on behalf of an immigrant from El Salvador whose name was Ernesto Orellana-Hercules, and I was quite pleased that we were able to gain a victory in immigration court We obtained political asylum for Mr. Hercules to this day, that is still one of the most important cases I have ever handled and perhaps the most important, and an experience I will never forget.
Do YOU trust this guy on upholding Trump's illegal alien enforcement? I don't.
[SOURCE: Confirmation Hearings on Federal Appointments, S. Hrg. 108-135, Pt. 3, April 30, 2003]
I disagree if only based on the fact that Trump's sister (like MY sister) is a liberal and given that it's a natural process that the justices, like the birds, will tend to flock together. Was Hardiman on the ORIGINAL list given during the campaign. If not, then the choice is automatically suspect.
Seriously? The guy had no choice but to defend intentional lawbreakers? Gimme a break.
Can’t help myself, Hardiman makes me uneasy, a’la John Roberts.
Prefer Hardiman.
Pro bono isn’t always a choice.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hardiman is considered to be a Centrist, the kind that almost always ends up on the liberal side of opinions. Like Kennedy, only probably worse.
There are always choices in life.
That’s why I quit teaching. I refuse to be part of the dumbing down of America. Those that choose to stay are more concerned about themselves, their pensions, their own financial security, then they are the good of the country. Or the kids.
That’s not the kind of SC justice we want.