I've written, eloquently, about why we should execute teenagers who kill. [View All]

Years ago, I defended "under God" in the Pledge. I pleaded for the government to ban abortion, to ban euthanasia, to ban flag-burning. I'd even written in support of a six-day Judeo-Christian Creation. I wrote these papers because that is what I was assigned to do -- pick a topic and a viewpoint, write an essay to persuade the audience of my viewpoint, then try the same essay from the other side of the argument.

In my current job, I routinely write for an audience whose political beliefs do not mirror my own. They routinely despise taxes (of any kind), minimum-wage hikes, and government regulation. I write for this audience because that is what I am paid to do. It is my obligation to report the news that's relevant to them, in a way that's relevant to them; often, my own beliefs and what's relevant to them do not mesh. As much as I'd love to write about the negative effects of a stagnant minimum wage and government inaction on low-wage workers, my audience is those workers' managers, and so I write about the mostly positive (and some negative) effects of same on a company's bottom line.

I enjoy the exercise of writing both sides of an argument, as well as simply writing an argument in favor of a position I personally abhor. It keeps me aware of what the other side is thinking, and it keeps my own arguments fresh. I think it makes me a better writer. And it helps me see the world from eyes other than my own (which, last I checked, were quite myopic). Rarely will my mind change based on these exercises, but my mind does open.

I am planning to attend law school, LSAT score and finances pending. Should I be able to do so, I will be studying Constitutional and public law. And I'd like to think, whether I become a defense lawyer or a prosecutor or a lobbyist or a judge, I can approach my responsibilities with the same sense of pragmatism -- this is my job, this is the law, and while I'll try to be merciful, this is how it works. Especially if I'm a judge.

I know what you're thinking. "Of course you can, Stacie. You seem fair and reasonable." (Except for those of you who are either thinking "who's this yutz?" or "FREEEPER TROLL!") Well, even if you believe I am completely capable of setting aside my biases, you more than likely think so because I agree, for the most part, with your political views. What if I didn't?

I'm not saying that Harriet Miers or John Roberts (&etc.) are fair and reasonable people; I'm not saying they aren't. But people tend to automatically dismiss their capacity for being fair and reasonable because they're on the right-hand side of the political spectrum.

My question -- Can a person who holds strong views in one direction still be able to speak, write or adjudicate from a neutral or even opposing perspective?