Via Digby, a pointer to CAF's The Rogues In Robes which contains this arresting graphic:
Yes, it's all the fault of those liberal judges!
(And just imagine how monotone this will become if McCain is elected!)
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
- 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)
- Seth Miami on Election 2024 Summary & Downballot Voter’s Guide
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 52 other subscribers
The graphic does have one flaw: It assumes that a judicial nominee share the same political philosophy as the president who nominated them. Also red or blue is pretty narrow spectrum. Perhaps some of those dots should be purple.
On the 11th, the blue dots (save two or three) ought to be red (Frank Hull is redder than red).
Actually, it’s got two flaws: It fails to relate whether a nominee was confirmed by a Republican or Democratic Senate. Which is scarcely irrelevant, looking at the Heller minority:
Stevens. Republican Nominee, Democratic Senate.
Souter. Republican Nominee, Democratic Senate.
Breyer. Democratic Nominee, Democratic Senate.
Ginsberg. Democratic Nominee, Democratic Senate.
Both the Republican defectors were confirmed by Democrats.
Given that for most of the last century the Senate was firmly in Democratic hands, I expect the colors on that chart would flip if you looked at the confirming party.
But, as for what it does display, what do you expect? Gotta elect Presidents if you want to nominate judges.