Monday, April 28, 2003
no really, about that National Review ...
For some reason, this silly blogger won't post what I've been trying to say. I'll try again, without the link; therefore, to read the article that I'm criticizing, you'll have to go down to an earlier post today in which I was discussing it. Anyway, here is what I was trying to say:
I've figured out, I think, precisely what bugs me most about the National Review article in favor of Bill Pryor, that I have already discussed a little bit below. It is that the writer sets the bar for confirmability -- no, indeed for perfect scrupulousness and genius -- mighty mighty low. It consists of not willfully disobeying clear federal law: the author praises Pryor to the skies, for telling State officials that they should obey clear Supreme Court precedent on abortion, and for his decision to comply with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act even while decrying it as an intrusion into state sovereignty. I agree: those are good things, in the sense that to have done the opposite would have been very very bad. But it takes more than that, in my book, to make someone a good candidate for the federal appellate bench.
posted by sam 9:07 PM