A Glendon follow-up

I am grateful for Steve Bainbridge's post on the Glendon nomination. I think when a person (including a lawyer) is nominated to some public office, he or she may well have some expertise that comes from a past professional background. Steve has mentioned one example. Regardless of what a person has done in the past, this individual takes on a new position with new responsibilities, sometimes accompanied by an oath of office. I would like to expand the category that Steve identified by suggesting that there are many judges who have worked for "one side" in their past careers; but when they are appointed or elected to a judicial post, they must put aside past affiliations in some hope and sense that they will now be impartial. New duties, and new responsibilities; new responsibilities, new duties. Think of the judges who now hold office having been lawyers for defendants, for the state, for corporations, for the ACLU (e.g., Ruth Bader Ginsburg); but now they hold judicial office. I am sure that their respective pasts provided a foundation in experience that contributed to their qualifications--but with new responsibilities come new duties. I am confident that Professor Glendon would be amongst the first to acknowledge that with new responsibilities come new duties and with new duties come new responsibilities.    RJA sj