Hot Mic

Omakase

Amazon Search

“Fundamental”

The president’s Supreme Court nominee keeps using that word.

The Volokh Conspiracy’s Randy Barrett does not think it means what she thinks it means.

But I don’t think he’s a wise Latina woman. At all.

Another law prof has this to say: “If her politics were different, this would be clear evidence that she is unfit.”

Share

9 comments to “Fundamental”

  • RPL

    The woman is dumb and dangerous.

  • MaxDamage

    If she were dumb she would be easily dismissed. She’s not dumb, I suspect. Rather, like a snake oil salesman, she’s smart enough to say just enough to make the sale and not enough to expose the scam.

    – Max

  • Alos

    Yeah, she’s no Harriet Miers.

  • deMontjoie

    Nope — she’s BOTH dumb, snake-sneaky and intellectually dishonest.

    Since Obama’s first pick for the Court was virtually guaranteed to be seated, I’m actually glad that he picked a stupid weasel like her. It kinda reminds me of his pick for VP — one that I’m sure he regrets on a daily basis.

    Hopefully she’ll alienate the rest of the Justices (as she’s rumored to have done in her previous posts) and reflect badly upon the bunch of doofuses (doofi?) who put her in there. I can dream, can’t I?

  • Scott

    Like John Cornyn, I have a tough time reconciling the mainstream judicial record, with the racially tinged comments to law students.

    That said, I think, as a conservative, I will find her an improvement over the justice she replaces — meaning, she will find herself siding with the Roberts camp more often than Souter ever did.

  • Curtis

    Manifestly, she is far from intelligent, not dumb (dumb means that she cannot speak and she can).

    More to the point, she’s being appointed by an outright communist who hates America. She will be far far more damaging to the US for the rest of her life than Souter ever was.

    Ginsberg is next and the ONe will probably decide that he can get another even more radical activist on the court.

  • Nermous

    Randy Barnett is his name. I met him once at my law school. He’s a really nice guy.

  • Scott

    How can she be “more damaging to the US … than Souter ever was”? He was with the liberal bloc on Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, Lee vs. Weisman, Rumsfeld vs. Padilla, and Bush vs. Gore. Can you get more to the left than those?

    She will be over there on the social issues as well. But I am betting that on criminal law issues, such as Missouri vs. Seibert, she will be with Scalia and Roberts. For that alone, she will be an improvement on Souter.

  • Curtis

    Simple answer? Yes, yes she can. As I understand it liberal jurists appointed to the Supreme Court immediately pull harder to the left upon appointment. Her answers at the hearings were the most disingenuous and dishonest in my lifetime of watching such hearings. She is exactly the kind of justice that would agree with Chavez or Zelaya’s interpretations regarding mods to the constitution.

eXTReMe Tracker

View My Stats