Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Religion & Law Blogs -> Constitutionally Correct

Religion & Law

: Constitutionally Correct

How much blind deference? Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith?s testimony at Kagan hearings

By Alliance Alert

An excerpt from the conclusion of Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith's written testimony in support of Elena Kagan's nomination to the US Supreme Court, via Jonathan H. Adler at The Volokh Conspiracy (see also the post's lively comments section): "The President of the United States is entitled to choose a judicial nominee whom he believes reflects his judicial philosophy; and his decision to nominate a highly qualified individual who swims in the broad mainstream of American legal life ? a description that Kagan easily satisfies ? warrants deference from the Senate. Some Democratic members of this Committee implicitly or expressly embrace this principle today but did not do so during the hearings for Justices Roberts and Alito. Some Republican members of this Committee implicitly or expressly embraced this principle during the hearings for Justices Roberts and Alito, but not today. The Democrats are right now and the Republicans were right then. But the opportunistic embrace of the principle, and the often-extremely-uncharitable characterization of the records of nominees of presidents of the opposite party, can only mean that neither side really believes in it."

Full post as published by Constitutionally Correct on July 02, 2010 (boomark / email).