Replies

During a court conference, Jusice Scalia was railing against the evils of affirmative action/quotas, providing an eloquent and impassioned indictment of affimative action both from a practical and constitutional standpoint. When he finished his rather lengthy monologue, O'Connor turned to him with a smile and said, "Why, Nino, how do you think I got this job?"

O'Connor never published in law journals, at least before becoming a Supreme. But Souter didn't have any history of legal scholarship either, just state court opinions of little relevance to Supreme Court practice. The fact is that presidents often nominate those without an impressive history of legal scholarship -- it makes it easier to get them past the Senate. Unfortunately, as the O'Connor and Souter examples suggest, what we don't know may hurt us.

It is silly to suggest that a Supreme Court nomination is a merit position you get for being America's best legal scholar. It is instead a political nomination. (If it is a merit position, I nominate UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volukh. He's only moderately conservative, but still has no chance due to having published too much about too much.)

Lastly, in case anyone is wondering, despite innumeral liberal slanders, Justice Thomas DID have a good pre-nomination history of legal scholarship.

I can accept that O'Connors political philosophy and personal temperament evolved and changed over 20 years. That's not unusual.

Part of the equation is that she's become, in perception and fact, THE swing vote on that court. She takes that responsibilty seriously, and she has probably become too politically acute because of that. Rehnquist, Kennedy or Olsen needs to talk with her about that friend to friend, professional to professional. She can't be the oracle of our Constitutional integrity. She will always err toward tolerance and half-assed contrivances to forestall any social wildfire. That's not her job.

Souter has been a left wing dolt from day one. What a malfeasence that vetting process was. He has never, in my rememberence, voted differently from Ginsburg. Sununu!!! He was angling for a CNN gig. I've got all kinds of Sununu conspiracy theories.

I believe it is best to nominate someone who has experience inside the Beltway. The three conservatives(Rehnquist,Scalia and Thomas) all worked for a considerable period in Washington and thus understood its allures. The other current Republican Justices (Kennedy, O'Connor, Souter and Stevens) had no Washington experience and were appointed from outside the Beltway. They were more susceptible to being courted and reading in the Washington Post how enlightened they were or how much they had grown in office. At least, that is my theory. (BTW, I understand that Thomas does not even read the newspapers in order to escape insofar as is possible their influence.)