Bush nominee story (response to Levinson and Tushnet)

[RJLipkin at aol.com]

In a message dated 6/21/2004 10:06:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
SLevinson at mail.law.utexas.edu writes:
I must say that I can easily understand why someone who signed up for a bar 
exam would try to find practically any excuse not to take it!
It might be obvious why someone would try to find any excuse at all, but not, 
in my view, why one would actually act on such an excuse.  A person might not 
want to take the bar exam (who would?), but given the importance of bar 
membership to the practice of law and the self-interested reasons for being a 
licensed attorney (however 'importance' is explicated) a self-disciplined person 
would, I think, understand its importance and act straightway unless pretty 
serious countervailing reasons existed for not doing so. (Does anyone know whether 
such reasons existed in this case?).  The role of self-discipline seems to be 
one of the central traits of personality/character that a judge should have.  
(It helps a judge decide a case according to law not according to his or her 
personal predilections, although this distinction is not always obvious.) 
Thus, upon reflection it is no longer obvious to me that the nominee's failures 
are de minimis ones after all.

Bobby

Robert Justin Lipkin
Professor of Law
Widener University School of Law
Delaware
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20040622/3d227240/attachment.html