This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on September 4, 2005 11:56 AM. The previous post in this blog was Farewell to the Chief. The next post in this blog is Topic A - holiday weekend edition. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Sunday, September 4, 2005


What's goofier: This or this? (Both via TaxProf Blog.)

Comments (12)

Attorneys who are law professors arguing against a fellow attorney being appointed to the Supreme Court seems a lot less "goofy" and on point. Whether you agree or not.

Too close to call. What's truly "goofy" is the prospect that one oddball nutcase guy's memo to the senators will get more attention than a letter signed by six trillion law professors.

Poor Grover. Just when he'd really started to rise high. (The profile in a recent New Yorker about him was good reading, by the way.) I'd fear his voice is going to get tinny and hollow against the words or predictions of those such as David Brooks and Molly Ivins, two commentaries this week I also found particularly compelling.

Goofier, or more annoying?

The Norquist memo is certainly far goofier, resting as it does on such shaky logic and half-truths. But for that reason, it's easier to dismiss.

The letter about Roberts, however, is far more annoying as it is so much more condescending. "We, the various law professors, can hardly believe that anyone who is so obviously WRONG (i.e., disagrees with us) about this long list of points would even be given the consideration of a fair hearing."

Well, gosh, reading through that list of transgressions, I found myself agreeing (at least in part) with Roberts' positions on several things. Not so much on others. Unlike the law professors, I'm not opposed to his confirmation based on these issues. I'm not supportive of his confirmation either. I'm anxious to let the process go forward so that we can learn more about his reasons for taking the positions he takes. Isn't that the point of a confirmation process in the first place, to examine the candidate and his/her views in more detail?

For what it's worth...

To me, the Norquist thing is by far the more offensive. "Everything proves my point." And a bogus point at that.

As for the law profs pointing out Judge Roberts's alleged weaknesses, I guess somebody has to go through the motions, but there's nothing in there that's going to move anyone in the Senate to vote no.

Profs *** and *** aren't going to let you sit at the cool kids' table in the faculty reading lounge if you keep calling them goofy.

The letter is goofy. Not everyone who signed it is.

Besides, the cool kids' table is whatever one Jack is at. D'oh.

You would almost think that the professors had caught Judge Roberts Lochnerizing.

I know that he Shepardizes regularly, and once got thoroughly Lexisized right before hearing oral argument.

Not to mention the scandalous way, with both male and female attorneys, no less, that he tried his best to see through their briefs.

Can't believe may alma mater could only summon up sigatures from Profs. Lansing and Blumm. NSL@L&CC, drifting ever rightward...

Clicky Web Analytics