That's quite an assumption, T. I'm beginning to suspect he may be full of bull honkey. I am backing off of my "well, he's the best we could have hoped for under the circumstances" assessment.
If anything, J.R. shot down several overinflated gasbags. The lecture he delivered to these unmoored egos in re: Kelo v. New London has to be one of the choicest C-SPAN moments ever.
Henri Levy has a great bit on Christopher Hitchens in this month's The Atlantic. Apparently Hitchens has taken to following Kissinger around and calling him a "toad" at the top of his lungs.
Say what you will about his Iraq war myopia, I still like the guy.
I'm afraid to write yet about Roberts' affirmation of the right to privacy. But after his confirmation is effected, I hope to address that here and in other venues.
The right to privacy question was the stupidest question the Dems could have asked. Even Scalia and Thomas believe the right to privacy is inherent in the Constitution. The right to privacy can be upheld without upholding a right to choice. Basically, the question as asked gives anti-choice jurists a pass.
Or, to further the baseball analogy, it was a ball.
I'm much more worried about his inability to recuse himself in the face of an obvious conflict of interest. The scope of his former litigation practice potentially makes him the Justice with the greatest likelihood to have a real or perceived conflict of interest in cases before the Court.
It's been common for justices to come from the ranks of lawyers with cases before the court. Brandeis and Frankfurter come immediately to mind. McConnell, if nominated, would fall in that mold, too.
How many of them failed to recuse themselves from a case involving a party with whom they were interviewing for a job and then ruled in that party's favor? 'Cuz that's what Roberts did.
7 comments:
That's quite an assumption, T. I'm beginning to suspect he may be full of bull honkey. I am backing off of my "well, he's the best we could have hoped for under the circumstances" assessment.
If anything, J.R. shot down several overinflated gasbags. The lecture he delivered to these unmoored egos in re: Kelo v. New London has to be one of the choicest C-SPAN moments ever.
Henri Levy has a great bit on Christopher Hitchens in this month's The Atlantic. Apparently Hitchens has taken to following Kissinger around and calling him a "toad" at the top of his lungs.
Say what you will about his Iraq war myopia, I still like the guy.
I'm afraid to write yet about Roberts' affirmation of the right to privacy. But after his confirmation is effected, I hope to address that here and in other venues.
The right to privacy question was the stupidest question the Dems could have asked. Even Scalia and Thomas believe the right to privacy is inherent in the Constitution. The right to privacy can be upheld without upholding a right to choice. Basically, the question as asked gives anti-choice jurists a pass.
Or, to further the baseball analogy, it was a ball.
I'm much more worried about his inability to recuse himself in the face of an obvious conflict of interest. The scope of his former litigation practice potentially makes him the Justice with the greatest likelihood to have a real or perceived conflict of interest in cases before the Court.
It's been common for justices to come from the ranks of lawyers with cases before the court. Brandeis and Frankfurter come immediately to mind. McConnell, if nominated, would fall in that mold, too.
Warren, too.
How many of them failed to recuse themselves from a case involving a party with whom they were interviewing for a job and then ruled in that party's favor? 'Cuz that's what Roberts did.
Post a Comment