I'm skeptical of op-eds written by lawyers who have business before the Supreme Court offering advice about what liberals (or any group for that matter) should or should not do about a pending judicial nomination.
-
Show this thread
-
Frankly, publications should not print these kinds of pieces. In my view, they're essentially business ads.
2 replies 0 retweets 18 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @AnthonyMKreis
Alternatively, they understand what's at stake as we increasingly politicize the confirmation process. The end result will be courts filled with party hacks of whomever's in power, and that will harm judiciary in way they understand more than most.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jadler1969
Do they understand that perspective more than someone else who doesn't have a conflict though?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @AnthonyMKreis
You mean like an academic? (cf. Akhil Amar's endorsement.)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @jadler1969
Perhaps, sure. I don’t buy the argument, but have no baseline objection to a piece of that flavor where no obvious conflict exists.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AnthonyMKreis @jadler1969
Don't academics who want to place their students in clerkships with Supreme Court justices have a similar conflict as those with business before the Court?
3 replies 1 retweet 11 likes -
Replying to @rickhasen @AnthonyMKreis
They might. SO we should ignore the profs at Yale and Harvard, and just listen to those at . . . hmmmm . . . places like
@CWRU_Law and Chicago-Kent and maybe UCIrvine. How's that?1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
seems eminently reasonable to me
-
-
I endorse this position, provided the privilege follows me post-VAP.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.