Comments

1. Jim Pauwels 06/19/2009 - 5:31 pm  subscriber

   I understand Pepperdine’s view of the Pacific is way better than South Bend’s :-)

2. Bob Nunz 06/19/2009 - 5:42 pm

   Pepperdine is a beautiful spot on the Pacific in kind of the conservative territory of Cal.
   Of course, South Bend appears to have a far better view of middle America and, probably, the Country as a whole.

3. Cathleen Kaveny 06/19/2009 - 5:48 pm  contributor

   A very interesting prof on the law faculty is Samuel Levine, who’s trying to integrate his scholarship on law and Judaism in much the same way that I’m trying to do with Catholicism. Here’s his webpage:

   http://law.pepperdine.edu/academics/faculty/levine.html

4. michael gonyea 06/19/2009 - 10:37 pm

   If you could summarize your point of view, in contrast to Levine’s, in 140 characters, I might be interested. Otherwise, I’d rather comment from the cliffs of Malibu.

5. Sean Hannaway 06/20/2009 - 7:44 am

   Anyone who knows Judge Starr understands that he is deeply committed to the principle that judicial appointments should not be political footballs. His “support” I suspect is like mine. She is qualified, She is the president’s choice. Absent some evidence that she is corrupt or otherwise unfit, she ought to be confirmed.

   That’s the way it worked most of the time until the president’s own party changed the rules in 1987.

6. Cathleen Kaveny 06/20/2009 - 8:30 am  contributor

   Sean, I agree with you about judicial appointments–and I see it as a good sign that Sotomayor is getting some broad support.

7. Bob Schwartz 06/20/2009 - 12:52 pm  subscriber

   Cathleen:

   …Sotomayor is getting some broad support.

   There’s a bad joke here, but I’m not going to touch it :]]

8. MAT 06/22/2009 - 1:25 pm

   “Absent some evidence that she is corrupt or otherwise unfit, she ought to be confirmed.

   That’s the way it worked most of the time until the president’s own party changed the rules in 1987.”

   Sean, but the rules have been changed, as the Vice President proudly boasted in his debate during the election. So why should the minority party vote in favor of someone who holds judicial views which are abhorent to them? What benefit is it to their constituents? They do not pick-up one new voter or gain any political advantage from it as the other party will not recopricate and all they do is alienate the few voters they have left.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment