Crap
By Jim Dallas
This makes me cry:
A number of other well-known and bright conservative judges, including Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit and Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit, are unlikely appointees in light of their libertarian bent and occasional departures from social conservative doctrine. Indeed, it seems likely -- given the sharp and close divide in today’s political world, in which one or two votes on the Court could made a significant difference in constitutional interpretation for years to come -- that the heavily ideological Bush administration will do everything it can to ensure that its nominees are clearly and consistently conservative. At the very least, it will seek to avoid a repeat of what it views as the catastrophic Republican appointment of Souter, who lacked a conservative “paper trail” and, subsequently, addressed cases with an open mind once he got the Court.
.
My humble experience in reading Judge Posner's opinions is, that he has a tendency to make even natural dissenters agree with him by using sweet pragmatic reason (which is why about every other assigned reading has a footnote to the effect of, "and Judge Posner said this, and lots of people agree with him"). That, of course, doesn't necessarily mean he's right, but sometimes it's the appearance that counts.
Judge Easterbrook (in Hill v. Gateway 2000, Inc., which I had to read for a class), at least, made me laugh.
I've heard good things about Kozinski.
Typical. We're gonna get stuck with a winger and the Supreme Court is going to drift on, bereft of any titanic legal minds, a mere pawn in the political chess between Washington extremists.
Posted by Jim Dallas at January 12, 2005 10:53 PM
| TrackBack
Well thank you Mr. Bork. Remember him, ever since his nomination went down there has been a war over nominations. Both sides have had casualties in this war. Y'all started it with Bork. Justice Thomas barely got through with a 52 to 48 vote. At least he had a vote in the Senate. Today, y'all would not even let them get to the floor. Every nomination deserves a vote either way. Let the Senators vote, not obstruct the process. Advise and consent, not obstruct. Our President just might surprise you, he's fair.
The "consent" part of "advise and consent" would seem to imply that it's the Senate's prerogative to obstruct a nominee if it wants to. And it doesn't make any difference if it's in committee or on the floor. Also, the big fights didn't start with Bork - you could look back to the attacks on LBJ's and Nixon's nominees.
All that said, and though I wouldn't agree with him all the time or anything, I think it's a shame that Kozinski wouldn't be considered to fill the next "conservative" seat on the court. He's a brilliant conservative mind.
