Come over and talk. Here.
UPDATE: That was fun. Lots of good questions. It's funny the way it's a chatroom with everybody posting like mad, then they cut off the access and only put up selected, quality questions, which I answer as fast as I can type (and hoping I'm not making typos). If you go over there now, you'll have to scroll way up to find the part with me, because the chatroom has been rechattified and a torrent of talk has pushed my typings way into the past.
There will be a transcript later, though.
१९ जुलै, २००५
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
६ टिप्पण्या:
Professor Althouse:
First, thanks for answering so many of my questions (I was jdhein22)!
Second of all, there is one question you didn't get to answer cause I posted it right when you said goodnite. My question is, had John Kerry been elected President, whom would everybody be talking about right now, or would anyone be talking at all?
I post the same question at my own blog, http://citizendain.blogspot.com.
Joel: I wonder how many questions like that the CourtTV guy screened out.
Justin: I never could figure out what Kerry was going to do about much of anything. That's the main reason I didn't vote for him. One of the benefits of him not being President is that I don't have to try to fathom his exasperating mind anymore. I really have no idea what sort of person he'd have picked. I guess the joke answer is: a swing voter, AKA a flipflopper.
Gerry: Of course, he should be confirmed. There is no legitimate basis to oppose him. Bush got elected as is entitled to his pick. Looking for a conservative, he picked phenomenally well-qualified person.
GS: I don't make a practice of studying the work of Court of Appeals judges. I would not have been able to say who is best without doing a lot of research. I have some well-known judges that I like, but I assume the best judges are persons I've never noticed. I mostly pay attention to the Supreme Court and, to a much lesser extent, the Seventh Circuit. It's not easy to form opinions about judges from picking out a few cases to read, and I wouldn't go on reputations I've heard of, because only some judges try to present themselves as "public intellectuals," and in any event, that may not have all that much connection to good judging.
My guess would have been Sonia Sotomayor: http://citizendain.blogspot.com/2005/07/president-john-f-kerrys-nominee-to.html
Humourously, some Senate Democrats were suggesting her to President Bush as his selection to replace Justice O'Connor! - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1441663/posts
I expect Sotomayor would have been the nominee under Kerry (though it's hard to say), and I expect O'Connor would have left anyway.
And I expect Roberts will be confirmed with 80+ votes. I don't agree with him on a large number of things, but he's well within the mainstream of the Court--he's by no means a reactionary extremist as some of the names that were bandied about are.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा