Miers

[Hamilton02 at aol.com]

Just out of curiosity, why is McConnell considered the sort of  
arch-Republican that would be of interest?  He was endorsed for the circuit  court by 
numerous liberal law professors, his Harvard article about the  Boerne case made 
him sound much closer to Souter than Scalia/Rehnquist/O'Connor  on federalism, 
and he takes Brennan's liberal position on the Free Exercise  Clause, in 
contrast to Scalia's conservative view.  Finally,  in his O Centro decision in the 
10th Circuit, he endorsed a view of judging  that looks a lot like legislating 
from the bench than a strict constructionist  would permit.  I know the answer 
is that he is opposed to Roe v. Wade,  but if that is the answer, we need not 
debate anyone's conservative credentials,  but only need figure out where 
they stand on that one decision, right?
 
Marci
 
 
In a message dated 10/27/2005 4:34:42 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
thai at ou.edu writes:

How about this for a  Roveian strategy: 
1.  Nominate  Brown first. 
2.  Nominate  McConnell if she’s filibustered. 
Could be a win-win as  far as satisfying his right-wing base.  If Brown is 
filibustered, then  the base will have gotten the battle they wanted based on 
ideology, and Bush  will have an easier time nominating another white male 
candidate, who by  contrast would be easier to confirm. 
 
Joseph T.  Thai 
Associate  Professor 
University of  Oklahoma College of  Law 
thai at ou.edu



 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20051027/745525c8/attachment.htm