tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post4169130125343319109..comments2024-03-29T08:42:34.620-05:00Comments on Althouse: McCain's judges.Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-90917704866013574472008-05-08T15:08:00.000-05:002008-05-08T15:08:00.000-05:00Revenant said..."[T]here is a wide gulf between wh...Revenant said...<BR/>"<I>[T]here is a wide gulf between what the Constitution will allow and what the Founders intended -- the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches can abuse their powers outrageously without ever actually doing anything unconstitutional.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Yep, and that's an important distinction to make. It's nice to know the original intentions of the framers, and for conservatives, those intentions have persuasive value, as part of the longstanding line of American tradition that gives form and content to the Constitution. I've referred to this a principle of <A HREF="http://stubbornfacts.us/law/sub_nomine_curiae" REL="nofollow">exoconstitutionalism</A> - the idea that the understandings, traditions and practices that have accreted and calcified around the Constitution's text should be given great weight and deference, almost (but not quite) to the point of being treated as commands of the Constitution itself. Nevertheless, the original intent is not law. It is what was actually enacted - the original meaning of the text - that is <I>binding</I> on us.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065798213115341398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-57976895463404912132008-05-08T15:03:00.000-05:002008-05-08T15:03:00.000-05:00It seems like it would have been smarter for the R...It seems like it would have been smarter for the Republicans to push for filibusters of judicial nominees to be actual filibusters -- i.e., require that the people who insist on continuing the debate actually talk. The problem with modern filibusters is that they have no cost to the person behind them; all he has to do is state that he wishes to continue the debate. He never actually has to do so.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-10131463501377426502008-05-08T14:57:00.000-05:002008-05-08T14:57:00.000-05:00You, like Simon, need to reread the Constitution.T...<I>You, like Simon, need to reread the Constitution.</I><BR/><BR/>The Constitution is irrelevant to my point. Obviously Senators have the Constitutional power to block Presidential appointments; that much is unquestionable. But there is a wide gulf between what the Constitution will allow and what the Founders intended -- the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches can abuse their powers outrageously without ever actually doing anything unconstitutional. For example, the Supreme Court could, if it wished, throw out every conviction of a white man lynching a black man. That is within its power. It is not, however, the way the Supreme Court is supposed to behave.<BR/><BR/>Similarly, while the advise and consent power CAN be used to reject any candidate who rules "the wrong way" on politically sensitive issues, that is an abuse of the power. It was meant to screen out unqualified and corrupt nominees -- not to pack the court with judges who rule the way the Legislative branch wants them to.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-38253381889971590782008-05-08T10:16:00.000-05:002008-05-08T10:16:00.000-05:00Thorley:"FTR: I don’t think that it’s unconstituti...Thorley:<BR/>"<I>FTR: I don’t think that it’s unconstitutional for the Senate to try to block – including through the use of a filibuster – a president’s judicial nominees as the Constitution allows both Houses of Congress to set their own rules (I reserve the right to object or not on other grounds but I don’t think it’s unconstitutional).</I>"<BR/><BR/>Absolutely. <A HREF="http://www.simondodd.org/noise2signal/?view=singleentry&entry=143" REL="nofollow">That's what I said at the time</A> and (as Pat mentions above) it's what I've <A HREF="http://www.simondodd.org/noise2signal/?view=singleentry&entry=261" REL="nofollow">consistently</A> <A HREF="http://stubbornfacts.us/politics/the_nuclear_option_redux" REL="nofollow">said</A> <A HREF="http://stubbornfacts.us/politics/filibusters" REL="nofollow">since</A>, up to and including in this thread, in my 10:58 PM comment. The problem that Frist (and all supporters of the nuclear option) confront is that the Constitution expressly grants Congress power to set its own rules, the Senate has adopted rules acting pursuant to that power, those rules provide a process for their own amendment, and Frist didn't have the votes to invoke that process. He needed an end-run; the only way he could possibly do it after failing to prevent the rules from being adopted for that Congress was by invoking an authority superior to the rules, and the only possible authority to which he could look was the Constitution. Since there's nothing in the Constitution that would trump Senate rules (in fact, the Constitution expressly repudiates the idea), they were left to cook up this crazy notion that simple majority voting was implicit in Article II, even though it was not in Articles I, III and IV.<BR/><BR/>Whatever else the filibuster may be, it is <I>not</I> unconstitutional. There's nothing in the text or original understanding, and only a will-o-the-wisp in history and tradition, that supports the idea that it is so - the nuclear option was and remains cut from whole cloth with raw political expediency, in my view.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065798213115341398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-57699040643595337122008-05-08T09:57:00.000-05:002008-05-08T09:57:00.000-05:00FTR: I don’t think that it’s unconstitutional for ...FTR: I don’t think that it’s unconstitutional for the Senate to try to block – including through the use of a filibuster – a president’s judicial nominees as the Constitution allows both Houses of Congress to set their own rules (I reserve the right to object or not on other grounds but I don’t think it’s unconstitutional).<BR/><BR/>I also don’t think it’s unconstitutional to try to change the rules in the middle of a session (that’s a matter of parliamentary rules not the Constitution). The reason why I refer to it as the constitutional/nuclear/<B>Byrd</B>/whatever option though is that I believe that there is in fact precedent for the tactic that Frist tried to employ in that Senator Robert Byrd (who was one of the Gang of Fourteen) tried or at least threatened to try to do the very thing Senator Frist tried or threatened to do in an earlier session. <BR/><BR/>My preference though is to change the rules cleanly at the beginning of the session but I recognize that Frist didn’t come up with the idea by his lonesome, he was trying to do what someone on the other side of the aisle tried to do before. It doesn’t make it right but there are very few players in the Senate who participated in this drama who had clean hands (with the possible exception of McCain).Thorley Winstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17262423151559851671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-91634899249316555172008-05-08T09:47:00.000-05:002008-05-08T09:47:00.000-05:00Even if you believe none of that, first, the blame...<I>Even if you believe none of that, first, the blame lies with Frist for not moving to abolish the filibuster in a timely manner at the opening session,</I><BR/><BR/>Exactly! Senate Republicans had three opportunities to enact the rule change legitimately at the beginning of the 2000, 2002 and 2004 sessions – the latter two of which they were on notice that Democrats were trying to block Bush’s judicial nominees. <BR/><BR/>The only reason to wait until the middle of the session, after the rules had already been adopted, was to stage a public fight hoping to energize the GOP base, or at least those members of the GOP base who are more interested in the pageantry of politics then the results. <BR/><BR/>I for one don’t want the candidates I support to waste their time – which is ultimately <B>my</B> time – staging political stunts. I elect them because there’s a particular policy agenda I want them to carry out. <BR/><BR/>McCain found a way to move that agenda forward with the Gang of Fourteen which ended the judicial filibuster and lead to the confirmation of two highly qualified justices to the Supreme Court. Ergo, I am pleased that McCain succeeded in getting seven Democrats (all of whom I believe are still in the Senate) to defect and achieve a result that should be pleasing to conservatives which bodes well IMO for what he might be able accomplish as President.Thorley Winstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17262423151559851671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-51354036616466464912008-05-08T09:46:00.000-05:002008-05-08T09:46:00.000-05:00Um, Freder, your biases are showing. You may want ...Um, Freder, your biases are showing. You may want to go back and actually <I>read</I> Simon's comment. He was in fact saying the same thing that you are saying, that the Constitution allows the Senate to set its own rules for how it chooses to advise and consent on judicial nominees. He said quiet clearly that his opinion is that Sen. Frist's "nuclear option" was of dubious constitutionality.<BR/><BR/>Mind you, I disagree with that position, but it is what Simon has consistently stated on this issue. You might want to understand what he's saying before reflexively disagreeing with him.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15361350446011090552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-83324711522436941742008-05-08T09:36:00.000-05:002008-05-08T09:36:00.000-05:00How do you know he didn't have the votes? They nev...<I> How do you know he didn't have the votes? They never voted!</I><BR/><BR/>Simple math. There were 55 Republican Senators and Frist needed at least 50 to enact the nuclear/constitutional/Byrd/whatever option (along with Vice President Cheney to break a tie). There were 7 Republicans who joined the Gang of Fourteen because they didn’t support Frist’s proposed rule change which means that Frist at most would have had 48 votes or 49 if McCain hadn’t been part of the Gang of Fourteen and instead opted to join Frist's march off the cliff.<BR/><BR/><I> Even a loss would have identified who was not supporting conservative judges - and allowed us to take action.</I><BR/><BR/>Um no, a loss would have showed the Democrats that not only couldn’t Republicans muster the 60 votes needed to break the judicial filibuster but they didn’t have the 51 votes needed for Frist’s back-door attempt to change the rules. In which case they not only would have won that round but they would have had no reason not to stop blocking judicial nominees from coming to a vote.<BR/><BR/>As far as who does and does not support conservative judges, there’s an easy way to gauge that. Look at who did and did not vote to confirm Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Alito and be sure to thank the members of the Gang of Fourteen who ended the judicial filibuster and made those votes possible.<BR/><BR/><I> And I have no idea what "emboldening" the Democrats means. IT sounds very vague, and nebulous. The "Gang 14", in fact, lowered the morale of Republicans, so its hard to see how a defeat could have been worse.</I><BR/><BR/>The only Republicans whose “morale” was “lowered” are the ones who care more about fighting an unnecessary battle thinking that they’re “proving a point” then they do about winning. The fact is we got Roberts and Alito and I guarantee you that Republicans are happier about that outcome than Democrats who supported the filibustering of Bush’s judicial nominees.Thorley Winstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17262423151559851671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-54211385330918346612008-05-08T09:15:00.000-05:002008-05-08T09:15:00.000-05:00and if your first example is Carhart, let me preem...<I>and if your first example is Carhart, let me preemptively say that's a very poor example and you can do better.</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, my first example would be the dissent in Gonzales v. Oregon. Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts must have had their special Vatican clerks write that one for them.Freder Fredersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01498410102809290399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-10886685864690358762008-05-08T09:07:00.000-05:002008-05-08T09:07:00.000-05:00(which is what Senators are supposed to do, and fo...<I>(which is what Senators are supposed to do, and for the most part DID do until the Bork incident).</I><BR/><BR/>You, like Simon, need to reread the Constitution.Freder Fredersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01498410102809290399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-30151407125536712008-05-08T09:06:00.000-05:002008-05-08T09:06:00.000-05:00McCain and the Gang of 14 acted to protect the Con...<I>McCain and the Gang of 14 acted to protect the Constitution from a poorly-conceived (fraudulent, in fact) end-run around legitimate legislative process that even Earl Warren would have considered too brazen, one that almost certainly lacked the votes to pass.</I><BR/><BR/>My, my Simon, don't we drop the mantle of strict construction/originalism when it suits us. The President picks judges with the advice and consent of the Senate, that's all the Constitution has to say about it. The Senate is free to set its own rules about how they go about it. And the Supreme Court (or any other Federal Court for that matter) does not have a right to intrude on the how the Senate conducts its business.<BR/><BR/>Even a pretend Constitutional Scholar like you should know that.Freder Fredersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01498410102809290399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-49789550341547236252008-05-08T01:19:00.000-05:002008-05-08T01:19:00.000-05:00He also voted for Bork and Thomas.He voted for eve...<I>He also voted for Bork and Thomas.</I><BR/><BR/>He voted for every Supreme Court nominee that came up for a vote, for that matter. All we can draw from his record is that he defers to the Executive on the subject of judicial appointments (which is what Senators are supposed to do, and for the most part DID do until the Bork incident).Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-67070889387649361882008-05-08T01:17:00.000-05:002008-05-08T01:17:00.000-05:00How do you know he didn't have the votes? They nev...<I>How do you know he didn't have the votes? They never voted!</I><BR/><BR/>Just reading that question made me tired. Can people really be that clueless about how Congress works?<BR/><BR/>You don't hold a vote to find out how people are going to vote, RC. The leadership goes around and gets the individual senators or representatives to commit to voting one way or the other. That's what the Whip does -- muster votes. Then, if either (a) there are enough votes to win or (b) there is a political advantage to losing (e.g. "those evil Democrats voted down the Everything Good and Decent Act of 2008!"), they try to push for an actual vote.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1825285460697778582008-05-07T23:40:00.000-05:002008-05-07T23:40:00.000-05:00RCocean said..."You cannot be serious. McCain will...RCocean said...<BR/>"<I>You cannot be serious. McCain will have to fight to a Democrat Senate to get another Roberts confirmed. Will he fight Ted Kennedy or Joe Liebermann to do so? Of course not. His whole record and his leadership on the gang of 14 says no.</I>"<BR/><BR/>His record with the Gang of 14 is irrelevant both to his views on the kind of judges Presidents should appoint (in that it was a question of Senate procedure and the constitutional limits vel non on those procedures), and to whether he's willing to fight to confirm good nominees (insofar as it signals, at most, that he won't fight with unconstitutional means to confirm judges, which is appropriate).<BR/><BR/>"<I>McCain voted FOR Ginsberg and Breyer.</I>"<BR/><BR/>He also voted for Bork and Thomas.<BR/><BR/>The arguments against McCain by so-called conservatives remind me of 2000 when putative liberals announced that there was no difference between Bush and Gore, so liberals might as well vote for Nader.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065798213115341398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-57287764766315594112008-05-07T23:22:00.000-05:002008-05-07T23:22:00.000-05:00Simon,"second, the Gang of 14 tells us nothing abo...Simon,<BR/><BR/>"second, the Gang of 14 tells us nothing about McCain's views on what attributes and views are appropriate for a judicial nomination he will submit."<BR/><BR/>You cannot be serious. McCain will have to fight to a Democrat Senate to get another Roberts confirmed. Will he fight Ted Kennedy or Joe Liebermann to do so? Of course not. His whole record and his leadership on the gang of 14 says no. <BR/><BR/>McCain voted FOR Ginsberg and Breyer. He has NEVER led the fight for conservative judges. Unprompted by electoral concerns he has never talked about the need to nominate CONSERVATIVE judges. Of course he voted FOR the Bush, nominees, to do otherwise would mean NO POTUS. <BR/><BR/>His whole history is reaching across the aisle to help the Democrats pass LIBERAL legislation. He never has gotten the Democrats to join him to help pass Republican legislation. His main concern is Foreign Policy and Defense.rcoceanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17102201338319611538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-80458691653765627722008-05-07T22:58:00.000-05:002008-05-07T22:58:00.000-05:00RCocean, you need to drop this silly vendetta over...RCocean, you need to drop this silly vendetta over the Gang of 14. We;ve been through this over and over again. McCain and the Gang of 14 acted to protect the Constitution from a poorly-conceived (fraudulent, in fact) end-run around legitimate legislative process that even Earl Warren would have considered too brazen, one that almost certainly lacked the votes to pass. Even if you believe none of that, first, the blame lies with Frist for not moving to abolish the filibuster in a timely manner at the opening session, and second, the Gang of 14 tells us <I>nothing</I> about McCain's views on what attributes and views are appropriate for a judicial nomination he will submit.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065798213115341398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-16002359522137934742008-05-07T22:54:00.000-05:002008-05-07T22:54:00.000-05:00Neil Benson has left a new comment on the post "Mc...Neil Benson has left a new comment on the post "McCain's judges....<BR/>"<I>If there were a balance on the Supreme Court they would be at least four women on it.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Only if you assume that by "balance" one means <I>gender</I> balance. And why would we mean that? Why not racial balance - three blacks, two latinos, and four whites? Why not religious balance - four Catholics, four protestants, and a jew? You can't mean political/jurisprudential balance since that already exists (four relatively conservative judges, four relatively liberal judges, and a wishy washy moderate). Why not <I>sexuality</I> balance? Why not balance for any randomly-chosen characteristic susceptible to demographic notice? I suppose the obvious answer is because that's not what courts are there to do.<BR/><BR/>"<I>This of course would be an anathema to the conservative male justices.</I>"<BR/><BR/>What's your evidence for this? Sounds like mere prejudice to me. The criticism of O'Connor, for example, went to her jurisprudence, not her gender, and who on earth supposes that O'Connor was wishy washy because she was a woman? Hillary Clinton, for example, is aything <I>but</I> wishy washy. I imagine a Diane Sykes (who I like a lot) or a Janice Rogers Brown (who I'm cooler on) would be welcomed with open arms. <BR/><BR/><BR/>"<I>McCain rails against judicial activism, but we have a new form of judicial activism on the court right now. Very conservative justices mask their personal and religious viewpoints by stating they are giving strict interpretations of the Constitution.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Perhaps that's true of Justice Kennedy, although it's hard to see how he's "very conservative," but it's hard to make that citicism stick on the other justices. You don't agree with their decisions, and that's fine; impugning their motives is a poor substitution for explaining where their reasoning goes wrong. There's very little judicial activism on this court by any definition, and the Justices that McCain most praises are the least apt to engage in even the behavior some liberals now want to rebrand as judicial activism. Let's hear some examples, please - and if your first example is <I>Carhart</I>, let me preemptively say that's a very poor example and you can do better.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"<I>The Constitution was written over 200 years ago. There was no way the founding fathers could have conceived of all the things that would happen the next two centuries.</I>"<BR/><BR/>And this is relevant why? The framers need not have anticipated the development of the internet to protect speech conducted through it from government regulation, see <I>Reno v. ACLU</I>, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), or the development of infrared search technologies to protect warrantless searches using the same, see <I>Kyllo v. United States</I>, 533 U.S. 27 (2001). Likewise, as the court will likely find this term, the question isn't whether they foresaw the development of automatic weapons; they protected "arm[aments]" and the question is whether a machine gun is such.<BR/><BR/>"<I>Would somebody please pass me an automatic weapon? </I>"<BR/><BR/>This makes me think of an exchange in the movie <I>Ronin</I> where they're picking out weapons.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065798213115341398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-21286559791777638582008-05-07T22:40:00.000-05:002008-05-07T22:40:00.000-05:00"...leading the Gang of Fourteen was probably one ...<I>"...leading the Gang of Fourteen was probably one of the smartest moves that anyone – particularly any Republican – made with regards to judicial nominees in the last several yaers. The fact is that Frist didn’t have the votes to enact the nuclear/ constitutional/Byrd/whatever option in the Senate and if he had tried it and failed, it would have only emboldened the Democrats."</I><BR/><BR/>How do you know he didn't have the votes? They never voted! Even a loss would have identified who was not supporting conservative judges - and allowed us to take action.<BR/><BR/>And I have no idea what "emboldening" the Democrats means. IT sounds very vague, and nebulous. The "Gang 14", in fact, lowered the morale of Republicans, so its hard to see how a defeat could have been worse.<BR/><BR/><I>"... And if their bluff had been called and they would have lost? In that case we’d be talking about Chief Justice Harriet Miers and Associate Justice Alberto Gonzales (if we were lucky)." </I><BR/><BR/>What? I didn't see any connection. Do tell us how the Gang of 14 saved Alioto or Roberts. In any case, its completely unproven that Miers/Gonzales would have been more or less conservative than ROberts/Alioto.rcoceanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17102201338319611538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-69177775880360189262008-05-07T22:36:00.000-05:002008-05-07T22:36:00.000-05:00If there were a balance on the Supreme Court they ...If there were a balance on the Supreme Court they would be at least four women on it. This of course would be an anathema to the conservative male justices.<BR/><BR/>McCain rails against judicial activism, but we have a new form of judicial activism on the court right now. Very conservative justices mask their personal and religious viewpoints by stating they are giving strict interpretations of the Constitution. The Constitution was written over 200 years ago. There was no way the founding fathers could have conceived of all the things that would happen the next two centuries. Would somebody please pass me an automatic weapon?Neil Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18269735762990766138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-91641797838075421542008-05-07T20:03:00.000-05:002008-05-07T20:03:00.000-05:00McCain is 72 years old. He has NEVER cared about s...<I> McCain is 72 years old. He has NEVER cared about social issues or judges. He led of Gang of 14.</I><BR/><BR/>You know I have to say that in hindsight, leading the Gang of Fourteen was probably one of the smartest moves that anyone – particularly any Republican – made with regards to judicial nominees in the last several yaers. The fact is that Frist didn’t have the votes to enact the nuclear/constitutional/Byrd/whatever option in the Senate and if he had tried it and failed, it would have only emboldened the Democrats.<BR/><BR/>If you want to be mad at someone – be made at those Republicans who run on judicial nominees because they know it’s red meat for the base and would rather be able to go back every 2-4-6 years and rail against “activist judges” rather than actually doing something to fix it. The fact is that Republicans could have avoided the showdown entirely by changing the Senate rules at the beginning of the term in 2000, 2002, and 2004 which is the right way to do it.<BR/><BR/>Instead some of the decided that they’d get more political mileage over staging an unnecessary showdown and we in the base would rally around the flag while losing sight of the fact that some of our elected “leaders” were more interested in having the fight then they were in winning it. And if their bluff had been called and they would have lost?<BR/><BR/>In that case we’d be talking about Chief Justice Harriet Miers and Associate Justice Alberto Gonzales (if we were lucky).<BR/><BR/>Instead we stopped the judicial filibuster in a way that saved face, got Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito confirmed, and lived to fight another day. Why some people insist on demonizing McCain for fighting smartly and effectively and getting us what we wanted in the first place is beyond me.Thorley Winstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17262423151559851671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-15100927924137588712008-05-07T19:06:00.000-05:002008-05-07T19:06:00.000-05:00Here we go again. Hysteria on both the left and th...Here we go again. Hysteria on both the left and the right.<BR/><BR/>McCain is 72 years old. He has NEVER cared about social issues or judges. He led of Gang of 14. <BR/><BR/>He has NO interest in fighting a Democrat Senate to replace Stevens with an Alito or Roberts. He doesn't even like Scalia and Thomas.<BR/><BR/>Reagan wanted Bork, and unlike McCain, truly cared about Judges. He couldn't get Bork through. Bush *barely* got Thomas through. And if the everyone had known he'd been Scalia II, he would have been rejected.<BR/><BR/>Look for McCain to cut a "Gang of 14" compromise. He'll give Biden and his pal -Holy Joe - the "consultation" power they've always wanted.rcoceanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17102201338319611538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-26045714338412574942008-05-07T16:12:00.000-05:002008-05-07T16:12:00.000-05:00Laurence Tribe is on his short list. How would he...<I>Laurence Tribe is on his short list. How would he improve the court?</I><BR/><BR/>Lawrence Tribe will never sit on the Supreme Court -- not after the Bork fiasco.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-41332167019462025452008-05-07T16:10:00.000-05:002008-05-07T16:10:00.000-05:00Ralph said..."Such as Bush signing McCain-Feingold...Ralph said...<BR/>"<I>Such as Bush signing McCain-Feingold. Why is Johnny complaining about this?</I>"<BR/><BR/>McCain's position on BCRA is more defensible than Bush's. McCain believes it comports with the First Amendment. He's wrong, but that's certainly a more defensible position than Bush's breach of his oath of office in signing a law that he believed to be unconstitutional.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065798213115341398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-18510997453079628332008-05-07T16:09:00.000-05:002008-05-07T16:09:00.000-05:00So it's been exploded by the extremist Posner Jr. ...<I>So it's been exploded by the extremist Posner Jr. (who is just as an extreme nut as his father</I><BR/><BR/>Ad hominem fallacy. Get back to us when you can actually point to inaccuracies in Posner and Somin's articles.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-43279997178834897222008-05-07T16:07:00.000-05:002008-05-07T16:07:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.com