Where's the passion in the opposition to Roberts?
emaltz at camden.rutgers.edu
Mon Jul 25 03:20:58 PDT 2005
"barely qualified or unqualified?" All Clarence Thomas did, prior to his
brief service on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia, was to head an agency charged with administering a major federal
statute for nine years. For much of the twentieth century, such experience
was considered excellent preparation for service on the Court. The case
for Janice Rogers Brown on the experience issue is even clearer; she served
for a decade on the most important state supreme court in the country.
One could plausibly oppose both Thomas and Rogers Brown because their views
might be seen as extreme. But unqualified? Please.
At 09:52 PM 7/24/2005 -0700, Janet Alexander wrote:
>Many previous Republican nominees to the Supreme Court and the Courts of
>Appeals and many of the rumored candidates for the O'Connor vacancy have
>been barely qualified or unqualified (this includes the sainted O'Connor,
>who at the time of her appointment was a little-known judge on an
>intermediate state appellate court, as well as Clarence Thomas, Janice
>Rogers Brown, etc.), .
> Janet Alexander
>At 05:53 PM 7/24/2005 -0400, Earl Maltz wrote:
>>I didn't know very much about John Roberts except by reputation until he
>>was nominated by the Court. However, even I knew that he was a committed
>>conservative whose commitm
>>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
>>private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
>>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly
>>or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>Janet Cooper Alexander
>Frederick I. Richman Professor of Law
>Stanford Law School
>Stanford CA 94301-8610
More information about the Conlawprof