One would be challenged to find an academic without an opinion on Judge Amy Coney Barrett's impending nomination to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. On Saturday morning Politico Magazine featured the views from several leading constitutionalists on the pick. As one might imagine, the range of views was great.
Dean Tomiko Brown-Nagin observed, "If confirmed, Judge Amy Coney Barrett will consolidate the conservative majority and shift the balance of power on the court decidedly to the right."
Professor Saikrishna Prakash wrote, "Judge Amy Coney Barrett has all the qualities of a first-class Supreme Court justice: intellect, wisdom, temperament and restraint."
As one might imagine, those leaning right would champion the pick, and several did: Ilya Shapiro noted, "Judge Amy Coney Barrett has displayed a seriousness of purpose and is dedicated to finding and applying the Constitution’s original public meaning. Her thoughtful opinions and academic writings show a willingness to hold government officials’ feet to the constitutional fire. But for those on the left, the nomination was reason for concern as Chancellor Howard Gillman observed, With the appointment of Amy Coney Barrett — an undoubtedly qualified jurist with rock-solid conservative credentials — the court will revert to the role it performed for most of our history, with an ironclad majority of conservative justices who have dedicated their careers to taking back the courts....In short, once again, the court will be a conservative bulwark against democratic forces."
I had the great honor to be included in this group of luminaries, and finished my assessment with the following, "As I write these words, I am watching my 10-year-old on her computer studying American history, and I can’t help but wonder how much my Bella will be inspired by our recently passed icon and how much she will learn of the battles the “Notorious RBG” fought for her. How different equality may look like in a world led by those who appear to reject it — the epitome of being selectively principled."
This blog has turned me into a follower. I’m very impressed by your work and I’m adding you to my list of favorites.
Posted by: Daniel Tan | October 01, 2020 at 01:41 AM
"How different equality may look like in a world led by those who appear to reject it — the epitome of being selectively principled"
Like claiming to defend the rule of law, but really just stating whatever needs to be said to effectuate your politics of the moment under the guise of living constitutionalism?
Like pretending to defend the rule of law, but bringing in millions of illegals and systematically exploiting them - in Blue states. This, in violation of the 13th Amendment.
Like Russiagate.
Like the illegal FISA warrants in 2016.
Like the Flynn affair - and, indeed, the entire Mueller investigation
Like fighting again voter ID laws (which ever civilized democracy has, respects, and enforces), because it threatens your ability to cheat?
Like RBG being asked to step down for the greater good, but clinging on out of hubris, ego, and a selfish lust to retain power. (Like deifying a judicial mediocrity because of her sex while erasing the first female on the bench because she didn't espouse the correct views).
You know who would have been the absolutely BEST person to have asked about this SCOTUS nomination? MILLARD FILLMORE. Should have won in '56! TOTALLY VINDICATED.
Posted by: A non | October 01, 2020 at 07:22 AM
Anon, you are consistent in your criticisms. Sadly, I am too busy working with Mueller on another investigation to address your earth-shattering and somewhat odd points.
Posted by: Ediberto Roman | October 01, 2020 at 12:52 PM
Anon - go outside. Go take a walk. Watch less Fox News. Whatever it takes to calm down and stop spouting conspiracy theories.
Posted by: Anontoo | October 01, 2020 at 02:34 PM
Given the sophomoric quality of your scholarship, Ediberto, I've no doubt its production keeps you very busy...
Not only am I perfectly calm, and I never watch Fox News. (I'm not even a Republican). Like much of the world, I do my best to avoid American news sources, given how untrustworthy they generally are. You should try reading BBC, Agence France Presse, Der Spiegel, etc., regularly to see what they say about my above-mentioned points. Hint: the rest of the world doesn't buy your BS, or consider you to be genuine epistemic authorities...
It's simply enjoyable to call y'all out on your mindless hypocrisy. It's probably also important to do so, since y'all aren't very good at challenging your own dogmas. (Perhaps this is in part due to the fact that so many of you aren't actually trained to be scholars).
Posted by: A non | October 01, 2020 at 11:30 PM
Anontoo
Can we have some spitting on the diseased now? C'mon man.
Let's get right into it!
What are you all waiting for? Let's dispense with the "hopes and prayers" bull (followed by the usual viciousness)!
Where's the hopeful post? (That is, hoping for the worst, and doing everything possible to make things as unbearable as possible, as usual, in "hope" to benefit the Democratic party.)
Soon, we will be able to see the most glorious party in human history do away with the legislative filibuster, admit more states that will reliably vote its way (especially, for senators), increase the number of the SCOTUS, open the borders and do away with border enforcement, confiscate all "guns," do away with voter id, verifying signatures on mail in ballots, and restrictions on ballot harvesting, do away with any inquiry into misconduct by the government if that misconduct punishes our political enemies, "reimagine the police" by defunding police departments, tear down all statutes we don't like, such as Washington, Jefferson and other of the founders, paint political slogans on public streets, cede areas of cities to "self rule" by radicals, and basically, as we are constantly told by those who advocate these positions, once again honor the "norms" of this society.
Posted by: anon | October 02, 2020 at 05:32 PM