Quote:
Originally posted by Gattigap
Harry Reid's earlier comments about wanting someone with actual litigating experience -- someone who's actually taken a deposition, tried a case, etc -- are well taken, but I didn't know he meant it to be to the exclusion of any judicial experience.
I agree with this. In some respects, I'm more concerned about a nominee whose primary attribute has been her loyalty to the president.
|
I think that Harry Reid may very well have meant precisely that. As I noted earlier, one benefit of not having a judicial track record is that the nominee will be queried on her judgment, ethics, temperament, and intellect instead of what she meant in foot note five of her dissenting concurrence in
California Ex. Rel. Beavis v. Butthead.
I am far more comfortable with a trial lawyer who has never put on a robe being a SC justice than I am with an academic who has never seen the inside of a courtroom (hello Scalia, Posner, et. al.).
And I agree with you that it is more disturbing to know that this is a woman who is so closely and intimately tied with the Bush administration and has such a high degree of loyalty to a man whose judgment I so completely distrust.
