Sunday, September 16, 2007

Beltway Reactions   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

One, from a conservative lawyer:

Smart to be skeptical on Mukasey for now.  He's not a widely known guy in conservative legal circles.  It also isn't obvious that he has the management or political skills to run an institution as big and unwieldy as DoJ - the same shortcoming that arguably led to Judge Gonzales' difficulties. 

And don't forget the last Republican to "trust" Chuckie Schumer - Paul McNulty.

From a conservative Senate aide:

As to the asylum ruling, that sounds awful, and I can’t imagine what it was like for the family. But if conservatives are concerned based only on the thumbnail sketch mentioned in the press and because abortion was involved, then we need to rethink our whole position on upholding the rule of law.

While defending judicial nominees who have ruled in favor of pro-life positions, conservatives argued that regardless of their personal beliefs, it’s important that judges uphold the law; we say that dems shouldn’t care about their personal beliefs, just that they will not prejudge a case based on their own feelings or the popularity of a position. I don’t know the merits of the Chinese asylum case, but if the Judge was upholding the law, despite the sympathetic position of the appellant, then as cold as it sounds, he took the conservative position (for the law, not for personal opinion).

Conservatives can’t argue for an unbiased nominee only when he rules our way. We can’t say that upholding the law trumps personal opinion, and then be upset when upholding the law trumps our personal opinions.

Wouldn’t we, shouldn’t we, oppose a judge who looked past the law in order to rule in favor of a sympathetic appellant? Wouldn’t we have ridiculed a judge that set the law aside to let his opinion rule the day? And shouldn’t we support those who choke down tears and uphold the law even when it’s painful? 

09/16 01:39 PMShare