Breathtaking Audacity
Law Professor Robert Gordon (who actually taught me administrative law back in the early '90's) makes an argument against the Alito nomination that's breathtaking in its audacity. He writes:
Why does Bush pick stealth candidates like Roberts and Alito, rather than open and forthright radicals like Michael Luttig of the 4th Circuit or Edith Jones of the 5th Circuit or Janice Rogers Brown of the D.C. Circuit? The obvious reason is that large parts of the conservative agenda are quite unpopular, and candidates who openly avowed it would risk being voted down.
First things first. Surely it's a typo -- and Professor Gordon does not really believe that nominees to the Supreme Court are actually "candidates." I hope.
As to his "stealth candidate" allegations, to the extent that Republican nominees have ever been accused of soft-pedaling their personal ideological preferences in the past, there's a strong argument that doing so is, in fact, a rational response to Democrats who refuse to extend to Republican nominees the same courtesy that Republicans show Democratic ideologues like former ACLU counsel Ruth Bader Ginsburg and former Kennedy staffer Stephen Breyer. When the Democrats can treat, say, the former counsel of National Right to Life and a former Jesse Helms staffer with fairness and respect, then Professor Gordon can start complaining about "stealth" judges. Given the tenor of today's opening statements, it's clear that day will be a long time in coming.
Third and finally, it's amazing that anyone with even the slightest grasp of American legal history would be accusing conservatives of attempting to pack the courts in order to obtain policy victories that they can't otherwise achieve at the ballot box. It's the left-wing history of relying on such maneuvers that have rendered Senate Judiciary Committee and other Democrats hysterical in their efforts to stop any Republican Court nominee at almost any cost (even, for some, that of their own integrity).
Is this really the quality of the commentary that the left is getting from "its" legal scholars?
Why does Bush pick stealth candidates like Roberts and Alito, rather than open and forthright radicals like Michael Luttig of the 4th Circuit or Edith Jones of the 5th Circuit or Janice Rogers Brown of the D.C. Circuit? The obvious reason is that large parts of the conservative agenda are quite unpopular, and candidates who openly avowed it would risk being voted down.
First things first. Surely it's a typo -- and Professor Gordon does not really believe that nominees to the Supreme Court are actually "candidates." I hope.
As to his "stealth candidate" allegations, to the extent that Republican nominees have ever been accused of soft-pedaling their personal ideological preferences in the past, there's a strong argument that doing so is, in fact, a rational response to Democrats who refuse to extend to Republican nominees the same courtesy that Republicans show Democratic ideologues like former ACLU counsel Ruth Bader Ginsburg and former Kennedy staffer Stephen Breyer. When the Democrats can treat, say, the former counsel of National Right to Life and a former Jesse Helms staffer with fairness and respect, then Professor Gordon can start complaining about "stealth" judges. Given the tenor of today's opening statements, it's clear that day will be a long time in coming.
Third and finally, it's amazing that anyone with even the slightest grasp of American legal history would be accusing conservatives of attempting to pack the courts in order to obtain policy victories that they can't otherwise achieve at the ballot box. It's the left-wing history of relying on such maneuvers that have rendered Senate Judiciary Committee and other Democrats hysterical in their efforts to stop any Republican Court nominee at almost any cost (even, for some, that of their own integrity).
Is this really the quality of the commentary that the left is getting from "its" legal scholars?
posted by LadybugUSA at 7:39 PM
4 Comments:
What's with the girly-man whining from the Republican camp? Is the right wing ashamed of their nominees' positions or are they afraid of a public backlash?
The Republicans have 55 voted in the Senate and a purported willingness to go nuclear. If you aren't going to bring your nominees out of the closet now, what will it take?
Hey Twister, why should Alito trade barbs with these clowns?? He'll come out much better by letting them spend their own time yapping then passing on to the next jackal.
Alito has been compared to Scalia, so I'm sure there are few who think of him as a "stealth nominee".........Except those blind to reality that is.
Not that I'm hoping for Ruthie or Stevens demise:), but maybe Bush's next nominee will be less "stealthy" for you.
Poison Pero asks, "Hey Twister, why should Alito trade barbs with these clowns??"
I don't think he should trade barbs with anyone. I just think that he should be honest about his real intentions.
Real intentions for judges should be to decide each case on its merits compared to the constitution. Any "intent" beyond that is judicial activism and, therefore, unacceptable.
Post a Comment
<< Home