• 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

« The Morning Wrap | Main | White Collar Defense Attorney Kramer Jumps to Mayer Brown »

October 14, 2011


David Crow

Republicans fight dirty. Democrats need to learn how.

Harriet E. Cady

Be it ever thus! How do we get impartial Judges when they party at the BAR functions with each other and of course worked at law firms where theymet so many who may be in their courts.
I don't find todays Judges very brilliant mostly they depend on finding their ruling answer in what the lawyers say and if its a friend of course guess who gets the gold.


Good ole Judicial Watch. SO busy trying to concoct ridiculous reasons why Kagan should recuse herself from all things health insurance related while overlooking the log in the conservatives' eye, Justice Thomas's failure to declare - for years - his wife's income from right wing groups and tea party interests. Judicial Watch is worried about whether Kagan might have heard something at a boring staff meeting years ago while completely unconcerned about the REGULAR attendance of Justices Scalia, Alito, and Roberts at Republican fund raisers and planning sessions hosted by the Koch brothers and other rich right wingers. Nothing to see here, folks. Everyone move right along.

J. R. B.

I find it amazing that while these groups claim to be impartial and are only looking for the truth, but instead seem to focus only on judges who profess to be progressive or moderate. I wonder if they are giving the same amount of energy to justices Thomas and Robert's clear conflict of interest and tax issues? There's hard and clear evidence of those two judge's conflicts of interest problems. Plus, past supreme court judges have been impeached for less. Yet, these same groups give the two judges a clear pass and instead focus on conspiracy theories with little fact to back them up.

Andrew Kreig

Perhaps it's irrelevant, but the judge issuing the ruling is a Democrat and former partner at Williams and Connolly during the 1980s. This overlaps with Kagan's time at what I recall as the only private law firm on her CV. It's a big firm, but those of us who point out these coincidences should do so for all sides.

Chief Shaw

It is irrelevant whether she worked on this particular issue or not - SHE WAS ONE OF THE PARTIES LAWYERS. Anywhere else on earth, in any juridiction, she would have to recuse herself, and it is all Obama's fault for nominating someone who had never been a judge anywhere to be a Supreme Court judge.
It is completely ridiculous that this is even being considered in light of the Democrats longstanding "hysteria" over the appearance of bias versus reality in all governmental decisions, but apparently only those they do not like. This is not law, but facisim.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad