In an online debate last night, liberal Georgetown Law Professor Mike Seidman declared himself "completely disgusted" by her testimony.
Seidman, who clerked for liberal icon Thurgood Marshall, wrote:
"If she was not perjuring herself, she is intellectually unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. If she was perjuring herself, she is morally unqualified. How could someone who has been on the bench for seventeen years possibly believe that judging in hard cases involves no more than applying the law to the facts?"
"Legal academics who defend what she did today have no such excuse. They should be ashamed of themselves.”
As one of my colleagues pointed out, Seidman clearly isn’t gunning for the Sotomayor holiday card this year -- unlike so many legal experts and analysts who have so eagerly defended her performance as a nominee (knowing, incidentally, they will soon be appearing before her as a justice.)
Technorati tags:
law 
legal 
SCOTUS 
news 
sotomayor
No comments:
Post a Comment