[Iwo Jima]

Neither Edith is among my first five choices. But Edith I is of proven constitutional philosophy and is VERY strong-willed. She is however a poor public speaker and simply lousy at Q & A even before friendly audiences like the Federalist Society.

Edith I also has views on the criminal justice system which are too strong for even the conservative 5th Circuit and are just unacceptable in my view. The Burdine opinion in which she joined was simply awful, so much so that the 5th Circuit sitting en banc reversed it, a very rare occurrence. This case will give the Dems very effective tools to oppose her.

Having thought about it, I have concluded that Edith I would do less harm with those views on the Supreme Court where she would have to get 4 other votes and Scalia and Thomas would ask her if she were crazy, than on the 5th Circuit where she only needs to get one other justice, like the crazy Rhesa Barksdale, to go along with her.

So I am OK with Edith I. I just fear that her Burdine opinion will doom her nomination. The first time I read Burdine, my very first thought was "Edith, Edith, Edith, you have blown your chance to be on the Supreme Court now." I would not be displeased to be proven wrong.

[Congressman Billybob]

Please ping me with a link to the Burdine decision. Yes, I am both a lawyer and a detail junkie.

John / Billybob

[dangus]

I don't mind brilliant people who are poor public speakers. It indicates hyperlexia. Hyperlexics are incapable of dishonesty, and very difficult to socially persuade.