MAXSPEAK ENDORSES HARRIET MIERS FOR SCOTUS.
I think he’s serious.
A Personal Blog
by Michael Froomkin
Laurie Silvers & Mitchell Rubenstein Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Miami School of Law
My Publications | e-mail
All opinions on this blog are those of the author(s) and not their employer(s) unelss otherwise specified.
Who Reads Discourse.net?
Readers describe themselves.
Please join in.Reader Map
Recent Comments
- Brooks Fudenberg on I Voted
- Jermaine Chad Ingram on Some Thoughts about the Downballot (Voters’ Guide Part II: Judicial Retention Elections)
- C.E. Petit on I Voted
- Jane Moscowitz on I Voted
- Ally Figueroa on Some Thoughts about the Downballot (Voters’ Guide Part II: Judicial Retention Elections)
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 52 other subscribers
Pingback: Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator
Harriet Myers is the Supreme Court nominee of whom it cannot be said that it is conceivable that George W. Bush could ever choose a better nominee?
I believe that the argument is that she is the “best” conceivable nominee when “best” is defined as “least likely to act like Justice Thomas”. The argument that In that sense she might be “better” than any other person Bush would have been willing to nominate is at least plausible, and may be come persuasive once we know more about her. Or not.
Plus, Brad, one has to wonder if Bush has a very special type of free will indeed. Because Bush is incapable of learning or of seeing error, the moment he makes a decision, all possible alternatives are constrained to the set of alternatives even worse than the one he made. Thus, he always “could have done otherwise,” for any given Bush-action B, but the value Bv will always be worse than any possible alternative done by someone non-Bush, N. I.e. Nv > Bv > B2v for all values of N and B.
—–