I haven't spoken much about the nomination of Susan Carney to the Second Circuit. It doesn't appear that she has much, if any, experience with habeas law, or even criminal law for that matter. Makes it pretty hard to offer any predictions in that regard.
But there has been a couple of interesting articles in the Connecticut Law Tribune discussing the nomination. One writer questions the choice because she has no litigation experience. It's similar to complaints over Kagan's lack of judicial experience. Another writer supports the choice, pointing out that in-house counsel at a university provides a diverse legal experience.
Interesting debate. My feelings are that, while I would like to see judges with litigation experience, I don't think a lack of litigation experience is a problem. As for the job as in-house counsel at a university, it seems a little hard to believe that it provides someone with a particularly diverse experience. But that doesn't really matter to me either. I'll take someone who's intelligent, thoughtful and fair even without a litigation background or a diverse legal experience.* Hopefully, Carney meets those requirements. Of course, it's tough to know whether someone will meet those requirements. Just got to hope that these things were important to the people who nominated her.
*Of course, I would also love someone who thinks that habeas corpus is the cat's meow, but that's probably expecting a little too much of any nominee.
Speaking of tough to know these things, I am enjoying how the Kagan nomination is completely bedeviling the press. As Linda Greenhouse stated the other day, since there is so little to discover from Kagan's legal background, the media is pretty bored with it. It's pretty refreshing actually. It is preventing a lot of the typical b.s. from the right.
And speaking of b.s. from the right, the rhetoric over Judge Chatigny is getting a tad overheated. I particularly liked this article that started out by saying that Joran Van Der Sloot represents the epitome of today's amoral man and then concludes by "arguing" that Judge Chatigny is a link in the chain that will lead to America's amoral decline. Or something feverish like that. It's a bit weird. There are others that are taking it to the next level, too (here, here, here). It's truly a coordinated attack.
Have to give the right credit. They know how to ratchet up the rhetoric. If this vote ever happens, I can't wait to read where else they can go with the evil talk. I mean, they can't call him the anti-christ, can they? Wasn't that designation reserved for Obama? Can there be two anti-christs?!?! Is Judge Chatigny the real anti-christ while Obama was just a poseur? I can't wait for the truth to be revealed.
[One sentence edited for clarity]
Comments