During the Rose House Cafe last week, Judge Scott Miller gave great insights into his professional experiences thus far in his legal career. The most interesting takeaways I found were the moral dilemmas that he had with his clients as well as his analysis of the recent New York Times anonymous Op-Ed. Even though his own judgment may have led him to believe that some of his past defendants were guilty, he still defended them in the end. His morals seemed very unique in that he would defend his clients regardless of whatever his initial beliefs are, and that’s a level of trust and character that is not that common to find among people. On the other hand, we had a discussion about the anonymous Op-Ed, which is considered the first of its kind. In the past week and a half, it has stirred a lot of controversy, and our talk reflected an increasing belief that a shakeup may happen soon in the White House. The 25th amendment being invoked would be considered to be a rare historical event – it’s just a matter of time before certain dominoes start falling. He mentioned that we’re living in a crucial political climate historically because we, as college students, have things to speak out against domestically and internationally. It’s a great time to advocate for a cause, stand in opposition for beliefs you don’t necessarily agree with, or try to find compromise and suggest a solution that works for both sides involved.