May 5, 2009
Giving credit where credit is due for providing a different perspective on SCOTUS nominees
I am pleased to see that columnist Stephen Henderson, in this newspaper piece headlined "Age and the Supreme Court," makes reference to this blog post of mine from yesterday titled "For the Supreme Court, Younger Isn’t Necessarily Better." However, though I am happy to be the conduit for the insights in the post, the credit for the substance of the post must go to a former law-school classmate of mine (who indicated to me that he preferred to not be named in the post).
Though I personally agree with many of the thoughts expressed in the prior post, my former classmate should get the credit for the insights and the wisdom to be found therein. Perhaps upon seeing that I am being mistakenly praised for his genius, my former classmate will be okay if I share his name. In the meantime, I will just encourage everyone to continue to keep thinking (and sharing) different thoughts about whom President Obama should nominate to the Supreme Court.
Some prior posts on SCOTUS personnel (including some with my own (and others') ruminations):
May 5, 2009 at 02:36 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Giving credit where credit is due for providing a different perspective on SCOTUS nominees:
The lifetime appointment was one of the three big whoppers made by the god like Founding Fathers. In their defense, it would be a 100 years before Alzheimer's dementia would get described. The result has been a dementocracy. No lawyer is qualified to sit on any bench, by his nutty beliefs indoctrinated into him in law school.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | May 5, 2009 9:26:59 PM