Redstate

But that is one thing I have literally never heard a law professor say in speaking about whom he supports. In fact, a good many seem to prefer non-lawyers.

Brad Smith
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
Capital University website
Center for Competitive Politics website

to hear that they are open to non-lawyers.

On the other hand, they probably wouldn't state explicitly that they are drawn to a candidate because he is a lawyer, even though it is a factor.

W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm

I admit to something of a bias myself towards Rudy and Fred in that regard. Mitt, of course, has a law degree but never practiced.

It's almost certainly true that Huck is not a professorial type and his total lack of money and connections, as well as his belated entry to the top tier, made him a poor candidate to garner endorsements.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

The one difference is that Romney NEVER PRACTICED LAW! (that's one of the things I respect about him the most . . . that he went to law school, but had the sense to never be "a lawyer" in practice)

And whoever wrote this forgot one of the main ones for Romney . . . James Bopp Jr.

Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).

A good personal and professional friend, a great lawyer, a student of the Constitution. But not a law prof, so he didn't get mentioned.

Brad Smith
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
Capital University website
Center for Competitive Politics website

Of course electability matters. Campaigns matter too, and that's why we have them. The general election is still more than 9 months away. So just make sure that you are not confusing current polls with electability down the road. Nine months ago, Giuliani was, according to the polls, clearly more electable than McCain. McCain has underlying strengths that help him - he is historically appealing to independent voters, for example. Romney also has strengths - he'll almost certainly be better financed, for example, and may engender stronger support from the GPO base.

It's true, of course, that Hillary would have more endorsements from law professors than any of the Republicans, and you're right, that doesn't mean we'd vote for her. But that's missing the point completely - the point is that law professors who are conservatives have favored Thompson, Giuliani or Romney over McCain by a substantial margin.

The point is not that other issues don't matter, or won't matter more - you're opening comment - but rather that law profs probably are better positioned to assess one element of the candidates - the likely quality of their judicial appointments - than are most other observers.

Brad Smith
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
Capital University website
Center for Competitive Politics website

Brad, we live in a world that has a general election so an endorsement in a vacuum is meaningless. Ideally, I'd have Thompson as President . . . but that just isn't realistic. McCain can win. I don't believe the others can. McCain got us Alito and Roberts. That beats the heck out of whom Clinton and Obama will appoint.

Do not forget Blackmun, Stevens, Souter, and Warren were all Republican appointees. At least I can see the product of McCain's actions: we would not likely have Roberts and Alito without his Gang of 14, which is all-too-often criticized in these parts.

Steve Willis
Professor of Law
University of Florida College of Law

Do you really think McCain will appoint an Alito or Roberts?
Or are you just wanting to give him credit for their confirmation?

If you think McCain is going to appoint more Alito and Roberts types, I have some questions:

(1) Where is McCain going to find a textualist / originalist / strict constructionist -- whatever term you prefer -- who believes that his "campaign finance reform" is consistent with the First Amendment? (I am not claiming to have done an exhaustive study, but there seems to be very little overlap between, for example, federalist society members and people who believe BCRA is constitutional.)

(2) Or do you think he will overlook a jurist's views on the First Amendment? (That strikes me as implausible given his continued litigation activity in support of the BCRA.)

If you think McCain will not appoint those Alito-Roberts types, then we are back to the point you already made, "Blackmun, Stevens, Souter, and Warren were all Republican appointees." Should Republican voters nominate McCain if they perceive him as likely to appoint Justices from the Blackmun-Stevens-Souter mold or even the O'Connor-Kennedy-Stewart mold?

Your argument is electability -- one of varying degrees of acceptance. For myself, I am not inclined to give up on solid Court appointments in January based on the polls. I remember when Mondale led Reagan in the polls -- and that was in the late summer. And we do know how that election came out.

My argument is more than about electability. It is also about the ability to govern. I believe McCain will have a longer and more effective honeymoon with a Democrat controlled Congress. I guess my argument is that he snookered them with the Gang of 14. I think he can do it again.

I agree McCain/Feingold is unconstitutional. Frankly, I would not be surprised if McCain knows that, too.

He was implicated in the Keating Five. His role was not great, but it was highly embarrassing for him. Ever since that time, he has been on this crusade against political contributions. I suspect he did it to insulate himself from criticism.

While I would prefer two more Alito/Roberts judges, I'll easily settle for Kennedy/O'Connor. They are far superior to Ginsberg - and we'll get two of her from Clinton or Obama.

I go back a lot further than Mondale/Reagan. Ultimately, it is a judgment call with lots of balancing. I have to cast a vote between now and next Tuesday.

Steve Willis
Professor of Law
University of Florida College of Law

I can get quite a few past Reagan/Mondale as well, although based on the "studbook" you have me by a few years.

It is certainly a judgment call, and the stakes are exceptionally high. I remain concerned that McCain is too tied to campaign finance and that we will get hammered on judges -- not because he intends to do so but because he has a different focus that happens not to coincide very well with what the conservative base wants.

Remember when Bush tried to nominate Harriet Miers(sp?).... that did not work out for him...

We have seen a new evolution in the nomination process from the right. No longer will conservatives trust GOP presidents to make the right choice.

We will not respect the "trust me I'm a Republican president" argument anymore. So, even though McCain gives us the finger from time to time, he will not get away with a Souter, Warren, etc. and thus they would not have support from republican senators.

After all, the current court is made up of republican nominees except for Breyers and Ginsberg... I still can't get over Ford's nominee.

Just a thought to alleviate concerns about McCain picking SCOTUS.

McCain was one of the main reason why Bush nominated Harriet Miers.

Bush watched as Democrats filibustered his conservative judicial nominees. Then he watched as the Republican senate leadership threatened to remove from the Democrat minority the option of filibustering judicial nominations.

Then Bush watched as John McCain announced that he would vote with the Democrats if the Republican leadership tried to take away the Democrats' right to filibuster judicial nominees.

So, when Bush had to decide on who to nominate for the US Supreme Court for the O'Conner vacancy, he thought he had to find someone who wouldn't be filibustered by the Democrats. So, he compromised and chose Harriet Miers.

McCain never complained about Miers. In fact, McCain's strongest supporter, Lindsay Graham, was a strong supporter of Harriet Miers.

It was only after the Miers nomination became a huge embarrassment when Bush pulled the nomination and nominated Alito instead.

McCain is a believer in "reaching across the aisle," as McCain put it in one of the Presidential Debates.

McCain is a believer in the right of Democrats to filibuster judicial nominations (even though McCain never filibustered any of Clinton's judicial nominations).

So, if McCain becomes president, you will get another David Souter or another Harry Blackmun.

Count on it.

You have any links for your assertion that Bush nominated Miers because of McCain or is it all speculation?

I agree with those that McCain got the better of the Democrats in the G14. My biggest worry is that he won't be able to pull it off again.

But think about it. If you are president Bush and you look out at the US Senate and you see Democrats willing to filibuster conservative judicial nominees on the one hand and then when you look at the Republican Senate leadership threatening to revoke the judicial filibuster option, you might think, "Hey, maybe I can nominate a judicial conservative."

But then comes John "reach across the aisle" McCain to announce on Chris Matthews' Hardball that he will vote with the Democrats to help them retain the judicial filibuster option.

So, given that the Gang of 14 deal did not remove the option of filibustering from the Democrats, Bush probably thought, "I have to nominate someone who can get some Democrat support even though Republicans have 55 seats in the Senate."

But let's face it. McCain is not so much a Republican as he is a "bi-partisan."

McCain is a triangulating Republican to be more accurate. So, if he is president, he will try to nominate people who don't get Chuck Schumer too upset.

Believe it. That's John McCain's record for the past 15 years.

in a form of Washington cronyism... and expected conservatives to trust him, despite the GOP presidential record.

The gang of 14 prevented a fillibuster for Roberts or Alito... and McCain did not oppose them

My point was simply that conservative wings of the party will hold the GOP WHite House accountable.

I know what you're up against. From personal experience. :(

Get a Hotmail account or another free email account and send me an email some time. We can trade stories. I have LOTS of them. The contact form works, and since all the pr0n spammers already know the address, here's mine:

hypereutectic1@gmail.com

I've got some fun stories to share about law school professors all across the fruited plain. And I feel your pain.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

As my nom de plume should indicate, I might have some perspectives as well if either of you are interested.

My email is public. If you can top what I've seen over the past 27 years, your stories must be something.

Steve Willis
Professor of Law
University of Florida College of Law

should see the trouble we've had trying to just get a semi conservative law prof at our school.

We currently have Zero, and I am having trouble getting one of the current ones to just sign a piece of paper saying they will be our advisor for a XYZLAWSCHOOL Republicans.

Ave Maria was created to the conservative version of Ann Arbor. The students there have LSAT scores pretty much equal to UofM, and the faculty seems pretty much top notch.

A rare conservative law school.

If the professors I knew had had their way, it wouldn't be a law school at all. Luckily they lost.

I had actual, frank conversations with the former dean of DePaul University College of Law talking about ways to stop Ave Maria from being accredited. To my everlasting shame.

I used to be in charge of recruiting at my firm---several senior partners expressed a desire to not even look at Ave Maria grads.

I ended up starting my own firm anyway.

This is my last semester at Ave- the school was accredited in 2005, in what was apparently one of the shortest ABA accreditation processes ever. Our entry LSAT and GPA numbers were fantastic because the school was attracting otherwise overqualified candidates, who were active Catholics, from all over the nation. They were willing to make big sacrifices in the hope that Ave would start putting out top-notch Catholic lawyers. Ave has been very effective at placing students into high-level clerkships.

Last year, the Board of Governors voted to move the school to Florida, as part of Tom Monaghan's "Ave Maria, Florida" Catholic town project. The school's continuing accreditation will apparently turn on whether the ABA considers the move a major change, and then whether they acquiesce to that change.

Don't hold your breath: we've lost many of the professors I came here to study under, three of whom were let go for opposing the move to Florida (and are now the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the school, Monaghan, and the foundation that funds us). Our entering LSAT scores have dropped, despite our application numbers rising, and our bar passage went from first in the state of Michigan to last (I think), in one year. Barring lighting striking twice, you may not hear much about Ave Maria School of Law for the foreseeable future.

Dinh, as noted, had endorsed Thompson.

Brad Smith
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
Capital University website
Center for Competitive Politics website

So I am really interested in hearing your thoughts on McCain's possible judicial selections.

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

See my comments above. Don't forget, we will have at least 45 Senate seats. Republicans, not Democrats, stopped Meirs. Republican Senators could hold McCain to his promises. That is assuming they have the fortitude.

Also, I assume Stevens will retire regardless of who is elected. He is unlikely to make it through another four years. But Ginsburg could hold on. She is frail, but then she has always been so. At her age, she could easily survive another four years. I suspect she would try in a Romney administration. I suspect with McCain, she'd retire.

Life has no guarantees. This requires us to predict:

1. the election (can Romney win?)
2. the likelihood that the winner will keep his promises (is Romney or McCain more consistent?)
3. the behavior of the Republicans in the Senate (who knows)
4. the behavior of Ginsberg, as well as her health (she would not be the first to try to hang on through a Presidency she did not like, so it is legitimate to speculate on her behavior with Romney rather than McCain).

Steve Willis
Professor of Law
University of Florida College of Law