Reply to How is the Supreme Court confirmation going to go?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "How is the Supreme Court confirmation going to go? "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]A substantial majority of the ABA rates ACB well qualified. [/quote]
Link?[/quote]

I don’t know how to embed the Twitter link but it is a letter from the ABA to Feinstein and Graham.[/quote]

Here is the link.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2020.10.11%20Chair%20rating%20letter%20to%20Graham%20and%20Feinstein%20re%20nomination%20of%20Amy%20Coney%20Barrett_54996751_1.PDF

It is good to keep in mind that the ABA Standing Committee looks at legal ability.  Skills only.  No one really doubts that she has the intellectual horsepower to be a justice.  The question is whether she will consistently place the Constitution of the United States of America over her personal views.  There is a substantial question, given Barrett's own statements over time, whether she is able to do so.  That is not a judgment about her ability.  That is her choice.  My view, is that she can adhere to both only by withdrawing her candidacy (though I see no reason why she need resign her seat from the 7th Circuit).[/quote]

She practiced litigation for 2 years. I am 31 and I have practiced in a courtroom longer than her. [/quote]

Then you would know that being a litigator is not a sine qua non.  Powell was a corporate lawyer and Brennan was a labor lawyer.  And what KIND of litigator is necessary?  Muc of the work of the USSC is administrative law.  Constitutional law?  Individual liberties?

A storied career as a litigator is not necessary.[/quote]

It’s not necessary, but I think it’s very desireable. If you haven’t been personally invested in the meaning of judicial review, procedural rules, statutory interpretation... then you don’t really fully understand. It’s like coaching a game you’ve never actually played. Experience as a regulator or legislator would be equally good. Even a non-lawyer regulator — say a former CDC head — would bring a valuable perspective to the stakes. [/quote]

Lewis Powell was unqualified.  OK.[/quote]

I said it’s desireable, not always necessary. But yeah, having personally dealt with a full spectrum of legal practice, I get antsy when I think of too many law professors on the bench. We need people who understand law is a tool — and fewer people who believe that they are so smart they know the One True Theory to interpret the law. [/quote]

Desireable.  Really?

Thurgood Marshal was a very well-regarded litigator.  Considered by some to be a brilliant appellate litigator.  Unquestionably qualified to sit as a Justice.  He was also regularly assigned tax and securities cases.  They were almost universally horrible decisions.  Incomprehensible.  Should we therefore say that the court needs to have balance across the various practices as well?  People well practiced in tax, securities, procedure, civil rights, election law, environmental law and so forth?

From a legal perspective (I have practiced now for 29 years), she is clearly qualified to sit on the court.  However, I have grave reservations when it comes to whether she would, in fact, consider the Constitution and laws of the United States to be the supreme law of the land in light of her statements that all things secular are merely means to her enlightened end.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics