• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« This Week in The National Law Journal | Main | U.S. Supreme Court to Review GPS Surveillance Case »

June 27, 2011



What's the big deal with consideration of "foreign law". By not considering what other countries are doing on common questions, we shut ourselves off from the wisdom from other sources and from the influence of opinions could have on emerging global jurisprudence.


Sorry. In my post a minute ago, where I said "s/he" I should have said "that President."


My view is that she should be confirmed, for the same reasons she gave at the hearing.
But even if one's view is that she isn't qualified, and regardless of which party controls the nominations or Senate cloture, every member of the Senate should expect the President to appoint a judge s/he can agree with philosophically, and every member of the Senate should expect the nominees to have a record as lawyers that reflects their job. If they were advocates, expect advocacy. If they were professors, expect publications and erudition. If they were judges, expect temperament and automatic familiarity with rules of procedure and evidence.
But do not expect what they won't have! Why expect an advocate to advocate only for what the Supreme Court has said in the past, if their client's case requires otherwise?

The key is whether a nominee will switch from whatever their prior job was to the job of judge, which is indeed to apply the law. All else is either dopey or mere politics.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad