Guest-Blogging: The Word On The Street...
Publius and Bunny were nice enough to invite me into their little cabal of lunatics at the Asylum. This won’t be a regular for me. I’ve only ever tried blogging a couple of times before, and because I am a busy professional (I am a lawyer in Chicago; Publius’ old stomping grounds) it just doesn’t fit into my schedule.
However, word on the street is that the president will be making his announcement for the next nominee tomorrow. And there are two names being bandied about by those in the know. We should all be happy about this. The names are J. Michael Luttig and Karen Williams. The president seems to have received the message loud and clear from America in either choice.
Both are excellent jurists. Both sit on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, and I have spoken with colleagues that have argued cases before them. They have stated that the jurists are fair and equitable, and have never rendered a decision that isn’t backed up by sound jurisprudence. Luttig was one of the justices in the Padilla v. Hanft case where Padilla’s incarceration as a suspected al-Qaeda operative was ruled as quite constitutional. Luttig also participated in a symposium for the ACS Conference where he spoke against judicial activism, as a whole. Publius highlighted this point in a post a couple months ago. The link to the speech is below. (Scroll through the full transcript to about the half-way point, and you should hit his speech.)
Karen Williams is another exceptional choice. Her opinion in Dickerson was right on the money. It dealt specifically with Miranda, and properly utilized the findings in Miranda v. Arizona. She also dealt with a Pledge case, somewhat similar to the series of cases that Michael Newdow continues to bring. The difference is that the case she dealt with, Myers v. Loudoun County Public Schools, was that the plaintiff—Myers—was a Mennonite that was opposed to "church and state" mixing, and he felt that the Pledge was a clear-cut case of such a violation. Again, with poise and precision, Williams did a fine job—with her fellow jurists—of reversing and remanding the decision.
These people are sound choices. But so are the ones the resident lunatics here have thrown their support behind. I stress that this, right now, is a rumor; nothing is solid in stone over precisely who the president will nominate. But if these two are any indicator of whom he is considering, then his choice will be just fine.
Mistress Pundit
Publius and Bunny were nice enough to invite me into their little cabal of lunatics at the Asylum. This won’t be a regular for me. I’ve only ever tried blogging a couple of times before, and because I am a busy professional (I am a lawyer in Chicago; Publius’ old stomping grounds) it just doesn’t fit into my schedule.
However, word on the street is that the president will be making his announcement for the next nominee tomorrow. And there are two names being bandied about by those in the know. We should all be happy about this. The names are J. Michael Luttig and Karen Williams. The president seems to have received the message loud and clear from America in either choice.
Both are excellent jurists. Both sit on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, and I have spoken with colleagues that have argued cases before them. They have stated that the jurists are fair and equitable, and have never rendered a decision that isn’t backed up by sound jurisprudence. Luttig was one of the justices in the Padilla v. Hanft case where Padilla’s incarceration as a suspected al-Qaeda operative was ruled as quite constitutional. Luttig also participated in a symposium for the ACS Conference where he spoke against judicial activism, as a whole. Publius highlighted this point in a post a couple months ago. The link to the speech is below. (Scroll through the full transcript to about the half-way point, and you should hit his speech.)
Karen Williams is another exceptional choice. Her opinion in Dickerson was right on the money. It dealt specifically with Miranda, and properly utilized the findings in Miranda v. Arizona. She also dealt with a Pledge case, somewhat similar to the series of cases that Michael Newdow continues to bring. The difference is that the case she dealt with, Myers v. Loudoun County Public Schools, was that the plaintiff—Myers—was a Mennonite that was opposed to "church and state" mixing, and he felt that the Pledge was a clear-cut case of such a violation. Again, with poise and precision, Williams did a fine job—with her fellow jurists—of reversing and remanding the decision.
These people are sound choices. But so are the ones the resident lunatics here have thrown their support behind. I stress that this, right now, is a rumor; nothing is solid in stone over precisely who the president will nominate. But if these two are any indicator of whom he is considering, then his choice will be just fine.
Mistress Pundit
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 9:11 PM
2 Comments:
Welcome to the bloggers world. Syd and Vaughn are excellent bloggers. I have no idea who Bush will nominate although I do hope it's someone like Scalia or Thomas. I have no objection to a female but I would offer this observation. To appoint a female to replace O'Conner, would be setting a replace precedent that could lead to narrowing other appointment. Diversity has no place on the court. Rawriter.
Rawriter,
I could not agree with you more. The gender game is for politics, which as Publius is fond of saying "has no business on the court."
I would have preferred Michael Luttig or Samuel Alito, but it isn't our decision now, is it. We must deal with what has been dealt, though I do think Miers deserves a bit more leniency and respect than what she is receiving.
Mistress Pundit
Post a Comment
<< Home