![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
May. 13th, 2009 02:42 pmIn today's Washington Post, Jeff Sessions (Sen, R-AL) expounds on characteristics of "The Right Person for the High Court". (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/12/AR2009051202877.html)
Among his statements:
My conclusion:
He holds appellate bench candidates to different standards. Clearly. He has supported Bush nominees to appellate courts who clearly and openly felt that the written law was not necessarily binding on the opinions to be rendered -- "activist judges" by any reasonable standard. Perhaps the truth is that this is simply code for "hews to the conservative line" whether or not it is supported in law. Names that come to mind are Priscilla Owen (from Texas to the Fifth Circuit) and Janice Rogers Brown (from California to the D.C. Circuit). He voted Yea on each.
I'm not remotely surprised here.
Among his statements:
Consistent adherence to the written law, regardless of a justice's feelings toward a particular person or political group in a case, is an essential element to an orderly society. It helps establish the moral authority for law and is the basis for the public's acceptance of judicial decisions.
My conclusion:
He holds appellate bench candidates to different standards. Clearly. He has supported Bush nominees to appellate courts who clearly and openly felt that the written law was not necessarily binding on the opinions to be rendered -- "activist judges" by any reasonable standard. Perhaps the truth is that this is simply code for "hews to the conservative line" whether or not it is supported in law. Names that come to mind are Priscilla Owen (from Texas to the Fifth Circuit) and Janice Rogers Brown (from California to the D.C. Circuit). He voted Yea on each.
I'm not remotely surprised here.
