Search the Lounge


« FASPE, Day 2: Lawyers' Roles | Main | Texas Tech Law Names Darby Dickerson New Dean »

May 27, 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Patrick S. O'Donnell

I like what Richard Painter said about this at the Legal Ethics Forum:

"This is very bad news for liberal, conservative or libertarian lawyers who express their views and want to be judges, or to be confirmed for any other position.

It is not your views that will make the difference, but what people say to distort your views. If you ever appear on a panel where someone even talks about a topic such as reparations for slavery or a constitutional amendment banning abortion that will be held against you, regardless of what you say and think. And if you have ever spoken against a nominee for the courts with anything but the most bland language, that also will be held against you.

And the Senate will filibuster because both parties are on record saying that filibusters are acceptable.

Democrats are furious and have already made veiled threats of revenge ('this will go down hard . . . '). Conservative and libertarian lawyers who say too much or join the wrong organizations, may have to sit out the next Republican administration. A lot of very good people may not be allowed to serve their Country."

As for Elizabeth Warren:

UNLV Law Prof

I agree with you Patrick; however, in this case, the Senate was right to filibuster Liu given his extremist ideology. I think Ed Whelan did an excellent job of outlining the multiple reasons why Goodwin Liu should not be confirmed.

I was delighted to see Mr. Liu withdraw his nomination, as now the president can nominate a more serious contender.


Patrick - Boy, I bet Goodwin Liu regrets what he said at Samuel Alito's Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

Payback is hell.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad