July 26, 2008

The Ever-Diminishing Insight of Stuart Taylor

So I realize that once one becomes a pundit it's virtually impossible to lose the status no matter how many inane things you say or write, but this is damn weak stuff. Quite apart from the fact that his ideological lens is, per the norm, rather too apparent, what's he been smoking for him to think of these 13 people was the two presidential candidate's prospective justices? Conservatives would have a problem with every one of the people listed as possible McCain picks except for Paul Clement. True, he could very well pick Sen. Graham of South Carolina, but that'd cause intra-party problems, and the other four seem non-starters given Greenburg's book on President Bush's pick. And Taylor says that Obama might pick a "crusading liberal", but most of the names he lists don't fit that description at all. Sunstein, maybe, but his politics are varied, and perhaps Kagan, but no one really knows since the Republicans blocked her nomination to the DC Circuit back in the 1990s. Garland, Sotomayor and Wood? Uh, I don't think so. And I think Holder and Clinton are fairly unlikely nominees. Maybe I'm picking on Taylor. It's not like he's the only guy around writing expected, useless, sloppy columns. But since there are so few columns written on how the election might affect the Supreme Court, the weaknesses in his piece are arguably worse than yet another piece of fluffy drivel written on the latest 1.5 point shift in the polls.

Posted by armand at July 26, 2008 06:04 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Law and the Courts | Media


Comments

Ok, so apparently I completely misread Cass Sunstein in law school because I always thought he was kind of a conservative. And I read a bunch of his articles.

Posted by: ryan at July 26, 2008 11:02 PM | PERMALINK

As a palliative, Orin Kerr, heavily reliant on Andrew Siegel, has his own thoughts.

Posted by: moon at July 27, 2008 10:11 AM | PERMALINK

Well, I'd say "exactly" to both you comments/lins. Sunstein might well be a crusader - but it's not clear he'd be a liberal crusader. And sure Wood and Garland would be easily confirmable, but again neither is a liberal crusader. And it strikes me as more likely that Holder would get an administration job, etc. ... Some of these people seem likely to get interviews, but I don't think they fit Taylor's framing.

As to Siegel's list, it's a good one. There's a good chance Obama's nominees are on it.

Posted by: Armand at July 27, 2008 10:58 AM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?