DLaycock at law.utexas.edu
Wed Nov 2 07:24:44 PST 2005
When I posted yesterday on the Ginsburg confirmation in 1993, I had
completely forgotten her lengthy service on the DC Circuit. Senior
moment I guess. But that service had clearly shown that she was no
judicial radical; Republican claims that they confirmed an extremist on
the other side because the President is entitled to choose are simply
University of Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Sanford Levinson
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 2:05 AM
To: Stephen L. Wasby; RJLipkin at aol.com; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Althouse on Alito
I think I did go overboard with the "staunch" re White and civil rights.
I had forgotten, e.g., that White was part of the majority in the
egregious McCleskey v. Kemp, which I find a far more awful case than
Washington v. Davis. Also, Ann scores a very imortant point in
suggesting that but for White we would have gotten rid of Hans and its
I do think that teh key point re Ginsburg and Alito, beyond whether
Ginsburg was/is as liberal as some suggest, is that a) she was the first
Democratic appointee in 26 years (!) (in part thanks to what I remain
convinced was Potter Stewart's partisanship in refusing to retire during
the Carter presidency, which meant that he got no opportunity to make
even a single appointment) and b) she was certainly not part of an
attempt to lock up the Court for a dominant liberal majority. There is,
I think, something disingenuous in overlooking the overall composition
of the Court with regard to the implications of Alito's appointment.
Also, I think that Ginsburg was already around 60, though I'm ready to
stand corrected on this.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Conlawprof