« My Tipping Point | Main | Gotchya »

June 1, 2005

Good Choices for the Supreme Court

It is likely that there will be three - and there may be as many as four - Supreme Court vacancies during the Bush presidency. ProfsBlawg suggests Richard Posner, an able jurist, a clear thinker, and probably widely acceptable (to the extent, anyway, that the Democrats don't decide to utterly destroy any nominee Bush puts forward). (hat tip: InstaPundit) This is a good choice.

I'd like to mention three others: Alex Kozinski of the 9th circuit; Miguel Estrada, whose nomination to the DC circuit was filibustered to death by Senate Democrats, apparently for being Hispanic and conservative; and Janice Rogers Brown of the DC circuit, also filibustered for years, again apparently for being a conservative and a minority, but recently confirmed.

I know that Brown and Estrada, in particular, would raise the Democrats' hackles. That doesn't bother me much. They both seem to be well-qualified jurists who would make good decisions, which is what I care about in Supreme Court justices.

Posted by jeff at June 1, 2005 10:37 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.caerdroia.org/MT/mt-tb.cgi/87

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Good Choices for the Supreme Court:

» Judge Kozinski from Caerdroia
My absolute favorite judge from what I know of his decisions is Alex Kozinski, of the 9th Circuit Court. (Yes, though I am a non-lawyer, I sometimes read circuit court decisions. I have no life.) I suggested Kozinski back in June. Now Glenn Reynolds ha... [Read More]

Tracked on October 29, 2005 10:17 AM

Comments

Brown has come close to endorsing the Lochner decision. Anyone who does that is manifestly unfit for the bench.

Posted by: Geek, Esq. at June 2, 2005 6:18 PM

Why? I can't see any reason why a broad reading of liberty, property and due process are inappropriate. In fact, I would go so far as to say the interpretation consistent with the plain meaning of the words that most enhances individual freedom, or failing that most restricts the power of the government, is the correct reading, as a general rule. I don't understand why Lochner would be a problem.

Posted by: Jeff Medcalf [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 2, 2005 7:17 PM