The "Smart Guys" and Jed Babbin
Today, Hugh is on the road, and Jed Babbin subbed for him. He had the "Smart Guys"--John Eastman of Chapman Law School and Erwin Chemerinsky of Duke Law School on. I always enjoy listening to two legal minds banter back and forth. There were a few issues that Jed addressed in the interview. The first, and most important one, was the announcement from Judge Luttig that he's leaving the Fourth Circuit Court, and going to Boeing. He's done.
The second issue that was immediately addressed was the Senate's reaction. The president has stated that he's sending a new group of nominees back to the Senate, including a few that never got their fair shot. John and Erwin both stated they hoped that the Senate could reach an agreement in a bipartsan manner. Erwin brought up the fact that if the Democrats shift the balance of power in the midterms--not in the majority, but enough to eat away at the GOP majority--the president will be forced to put up nominees that could pass that muster.
That prospect is not only foolish, but it shows that Erwin's missing the point. The party in power is sick of the activism on the courst. We want judges on the bench that are originalists or constructionists; people who believe that the Constitution says what it means, and means what it says. That is the right and proper way to interpret the Constitution. No add-ons can be included where they aren't mentioned; that is in the purview of the legislative branch to remedy, not unelected judges using personal preferences in decisions.
Then we came to the heated debate over the ABA. For a very long time, the ABA has been consulted, by the Senate, when it comes to "rating" jurists. Unqualified, qualified, well-qualified, and highly-qualified are ratings they have given to judges like John Roberts, Sam Alito, Janice Rogers Brown, William Pickering, and Miguel Estrada. Most of them receiving either well-or highly-qualified ratings, and nothing added in terms of "gripes." John believes (as I do) that the ABA is slanted, and he appreciated this Senate in moving away from giving their ratings such a prominent role. They do look at judicial ideology, as well as temperment and knowledge/skills of the jurist in question. Erwin disagreed, and continued to do so after each point he made.
That was sad. John was in the process of pulling up the 1976 ABA guidelines regarding their ratings, and how they come to them, when Erwin stated that they never included any ideological ideas when it came to the ratings. They did take into account a jurists ideology during the seventies and eighties, but according to the statement on their site, they no longer do. (And if you believe that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.) While Erwin can maintain that the ABA doesn't take that into account, we have previous examples to show there was one.
This comes to a head as Brett Kavanaugh is finishing up what seems like his 100th trip before the Judiciary Committee. The Left on the committee are doing their damndest to drag their feet, and make life difficult for each and every nominee. Any they disagree with, they must "confer and compare notes." They have tried to hold up as many of them as possible, including Sam Alito (which the media tried to make into a punching bag; "Damn those conservatvies, he's just too likable!" Yeah, sucks to be them.
The war for the judiciary is just starting to gear up again. And I don't blame the president. He's giving the GOP another issue to run on, and allow them to put their judge's necessity in their own context. Yes, we want originalists, but there are other issues coming up where originalism will have its place. (Illegal immigration, anyone?) So we do need to pay attention to what's coming up, and not be like Erwin. He's been running around with his head in the sand for some time, and I doubt he'll stop imitating the ostrich anytime soon.
Publius II
Today, Hugh is on the road, and Jed Babbin subbed for him. He had the "Smart Guys"--John Eastman of Chapman Law School and Erwin Chemerinsky of Duke Law School on. I always enjoy listening to two legal minds banter back and forth. There were a few issues that Jed addressed in the interview. The first, and most important one, was the announcement from Judge Luttig that he's leaving the Fourth Circuit Court, and going to Boeing. He's done.
The second issue that was immediately addressed was the Senate's reaction. The president has stated that he's sending a new group of nominees back to the Senate, including a few that never got their fair shot. John and Erwin both stated they hoped that the Senate could reach an agreement in a bipartsan manner. Erwin brought up the fact that if the Democrats shift the balance of power in the midterms--not in the majority, but enough to eat away at the GOP majority--the president will be forced to put up nominees that could pass that muster.
That prospect is not only foolish, but it shows that Erwin's missing the point. The party in power is sick of the activism on the courst. We want judges on the bench that are originalists or constructionists; people who believe that the Constitution says what it means, and means what it says. That is the right and proper way to interpret the Constitution. No add-ons can be included where they aren't mentioned; that is in the purview of the legislative branch to remedy, not unelected judges using personal preferences in decisions.
Then we came to the heated debate over the ABA. For a very long time, the ABA has been consulted, by the Senate, when it comes to "rating" jurists. Unqualified, qualified, well-qualified, and highly-qualified are ratings they have given to judges like John Roberts, Sam Alito, Janice Rogers Brown, William Pickering, and Miguel Estrada. Most of them receiving either well-or highly-qualified ratings, and nothing added in terms of "gripes." John believes (as I do) that the ABA is slanted, and he appreciated this Senate in moving away from giving their ratings such a prominent role. They do look at judicial ideology, as well as temperment and knowledge/skills of the jurist in question. Erwin disagreed, and continued to do so after each point he made.
That was sad. John was in the process of pulling up the 1976 ABA guidelines regarding their ratings, and how they come to them, when Erwin stated that they never included any ideological ideas when it came to the ratings. They did take into account a jurists ideology during the seventies and eighties, but according to the statement on their site, they no longer do. (And if you believe that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.) While Erwin can maintain that the ABA doesn't take that into account, we have previous examples to show there was one.
This comes to a head as Brett Kavanaugh is finishing up what seems like his 100th trip before the Judiciary Committee. The Left on the committee are doing their damndest to drag their feet, and make life difficult for each and every nominee. Any they disagree with, they must "confer and compare notes." They have tried to hold up as many of them as possible, including Sam Alito (which the media tried to make into a punching bag; "Damn those conservatvies, he's just too likable!" Yeah, sucks to be them.
The war for the judiciary is just starting to gear up again. And I don't blame the president. He's giving the GOP another issue to run on, and allow them to put their judge's necessity in their own context. Yes, we want originalists, but there are other issues coming up where originalism will have its place. (Illegal immigration, anyone?) So we do need to pay attention to what's coming up, and not be like Erwin. He's been running around with his head in the sand for some time, and I doubt he'll stop imitating the ostrich anytime soon.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 7:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home