Many of us here in South Florida were rooting for Barbara Lagoa. Even though she didn't ultimately get the nomination, what an honor and an experience to have made the 2 person short-list.
In the meantime, the left will have to decide how they want to play the Barrett nomination especially since it's pretty clear that she will be quickly confirmed.
Some liberal commentators are already coming to Barrett's defense. Here's Noah Feldman, who wrote a piece titled: "Amy Coney Barrett Deserves to be on the Supreme Court."
Like many other liberals, I’m devastated by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, which opened the way for President Donald Trump to nominate a third Supreme Court justice in his first term. And I’m revolted by the hypocrisy of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s willingness to confirm Trump’s nominee after refusing to even allow a vote on Judge Merrick Garland.
Yet these political judgments need to be distinguished from a separate question: what to think about Judge Amy Coney Barrett, whom Trump has told associates he plans to nominate. And here I want to be extremely clear. Regardless of what you or I may think of the circumstances of this nomination, Barrett is highly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.
I disagree with much of her judicial philosophy and expect to disagree with many, maybe even most of her future votes and opinions. Yet despite this disagreement, I know her to be a brilliant and conscientious lawyer who will analyze and decide cases in good faith, applying the jurisprudential principles to which she is committed. Those are the basic criteria for being a good justice. Barrett meets and exceeds them.
I got to know Barrett more than 20 years ago when we clerked at the Supreme Court during the 1998-99 term. Of the thirty-some clerks that year, all of whom had graduated at the top of their law school classes and done prestigious appellate clerkships before coming to work at the court, Barrett stood out. Measured subjectively and unscientifically by pure legal acumen, she was one of the two strongest lawyers. The other was Jenny Martinez, now dean of the Stanford Law School.
When assigned to work on an extremely complex, difficult case, especially one involving a hard-to-comprehend statutory scheme, I would first go to Barrett to explain it to me. Then I would go to Martinez to tell me what I should think about it.
Barrett, a textualist who was working for a textualist, Justice Antonin Scalia, had the ability to bring logic and order to disorder and complexity. You can’t be a good textualist without that, since textualism insists that the law can be understood without reference to legislative history or the aims and context of the statute.
Martinez had the special skill of connecting the tangle of complex strands to a sensible statutory purpose. She clerked for Justice Stephen Breyer, who also believes in pragmatically engaging the question of what a statute is actually trying to do in order to interpret it.
In a world where merit counts, Barrett and Martinez would both be recognized as worthy of serving on the Supreme Court. If a Democratic president with the support of a Democratic Senate asked me to recommend a current law professor for the bench, Martinez would be on my short list.
There is no question that Barrett will move the Court far to the right, which is pretty depressing. But at least she is extremely smart, qualified, and a nice person as described by all who know her. Barrett gave a really nice acceptance speech and said all of the right things:
9 comments:
Scalia was a textualist, until he decided he was not (corporations are people too). So too with this one.
The GOP has made the decision to nominate judges who will advance their policy - fealty to any approach to the law aside. As long as they can pass muster and not be proven to be a rapist, they are good. On that count, Barret seems to pass the test. I do not blame the GOP, the Democrats are trying to do the same thing, we are just not as good at it and tend to be more honest in our choices (the most qualified get the nomination over people who would be more ideologically driven).
But seriously, an 'she's smart and hard working' from a co-clerk who acknowledges she is going up no matter what, is meaningless. Do you really believe this guy would want to piss her off by slamming her as a ideologue?
In then end, I agree with him on one point - there is no purposes to raising the hue and cry and tearing our hair out - it is what it is...why turn off voters with panicky machinations and forecasts of doom.
The people who understand how bad this is are going to vote Democratic. The people who do not, are too dumb or ideologically driven to care - they vote Republican. The ones in the middle, that slim 5%, are not going to want to watch Democrats stomping their feet and throwing a tantrum like little children.
Personally, I just prefer anonymous name calling - it makes me feel a little better.
"The GOP has made the decision to nominate judges who will advance their policy - fealty to any approach to the law aside."
Um...guess you havent read bostock, one of the most important decisions in a generation.
"As long as they can pass muster and not be proven to be a rapist, they are good. On that count, Barret seems to pass the test."
What a silly thing to say about barrett. Just like kagan sotomayor garland etc, barrett is extremely well qualified as a matter of merit.
" I do not blame the GOP, the Democrats are trying to do the same thing, we are just not as good at it and tend to be more honest in our choices (the most qualified get the nomination over people who would be more ideologically driven)."
Dems are committed to nominating the most qualified? Really? Biden is only picking black females once he gets elected. That is a meritocracy? Be honest...dems pick on skin color first and merit second.
"The people who understand how bad this is are going to vote Democratic. The people who do not, are too dumb or ideologically driven to care - they vote Republican."
Gotta love the conceit. Those who think differently than me are dumb.
It makes me feel better, not necessarily superior:
https://youtu.be/JXVXyZi-fN0
“The people who do not, are too dumb or ideologically driven to care - they vote Republican. “
Wow. I don’t even know where to begin or end with your intellectual racism. Don’t believe in my ideals? F U.
Elections have consequences. Welcome Justice Barrett.
Intellectual racism? Based on a comment about intelligence? Thank you for pricing my point.
All I can say is: your welcome.
There's a couple of district court judges who were hoping for a Lagoa pick and a Trump victory who are very disappointed.
What 10:01 was saying is Scalia was a statist like the rest of SCOTUS justices who -despite trying to be different- also followed the concept of whose ox was gored. He was a textualist unless it led him to a result he didn't like. Barrett is the same and the problem is that her personal beliefs are way outside the mainstream. The last judge I ever knew who was not influenced by whose ox was gored was Bork, and look what happened to him when he told the truth about his beliefs.
Meanwhile I must respectfully dissent Mr. Markus. It is NO honor to be considered for the Supreme Court by Trump. It's like being considered for the post of civil rights by George Wallace. Anyone who legitimizes Trump's actions ultimately pays the price in personal integrity. Read Rage and see what happened to Mattis and Tillerson and Dan Coats.
It's like being asked to be his partner in a business venture. Only the blind would accept. And greed and ambition blinds as we have seen.
So sayeth the waaaaay overprivileged white liberal defense attorney.
Post a Comment