pageok
pageok
pageok
ACS Panel on John Roberts Nomination:
On Wednesday I was on a panel here at Georgetown about the Roberts nomination that was sponsored by the American Constitution Society. It was broadcast live by C*SPAN and is archived and available for viewing on line (using RealVideo) here. (or click here and scroll down to program entitled "American Constitution Society Panel on John Roberts Nomination (08/31/2005)") I have not watched it yet myself but am told that I am identified on screen as Marty Lederman at various points in the broadcast. I imagine that this led to Marty getting some irate emails from his fans. I received on email saying that Marty Lederman sure looks a lot like Randy Barnett.
SimonD (mail):
I caught the end of the Q&A section on CSPAN earlier, and I'd been looking around for it on their archive, without success, so thanks for the link!

There's also a panel discussion about the Senate's advice and consent role with Robert Bork, Ted Olson and Mark Tushnet here.
9.2.2005 4:21pm
Anonymous Jim (mail):
I too caught this. When a student asked the panelists what advice they would give to left leaning organizations opposing Roberts, the one panelist who did respond said "tone it down". Good advice indeed. Better advice would be "win more elections".

While I agree with Prof. Barnett on the practical effect of Dems attempting to filibuster the nomination (namely that the result will be that the majority does away with the filibuster) I was left curious as to whether the Prof. was opposed to all filibusters, all filibusters of presidential nominees, all filibusters of judicial nominees or just of this particular nominee.
9.2.2005 5:10pm
SimonD (mail):
More importantly, Randy, when that chap questioned about drift, and noted Souter as a best case and Scalia as a worst case, why did no one point out that Scalia's philosophy hasn't really drifted much since his arrival, and that's not really a bad thing? But that may not have been a popular view in that room. ;)

But seriously, and in relation to Jim's questions above, has Randy read the work of Rappaport &McGinnis (see "The Constitutionality of Supermajority Rules: A Defense", 105 YALE L.J. 483 (1995); "THE RIGHTS OF LEGISLATORS AND THE WRONGS OF INTERPRETATION: A FURTHER DEFENSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LEGISLATIVE SUPERMAJORITY RULES" 47 Duke L.J. 327) on the constitutionality of legislative supermajority rules, and what arguments would he offer against their points?
9.2.2005 5:24pm
Anonymous Jim (mail):
I had a similar thought on the Scalia/Souter question but did not want to clutter my comment.
9.2.2005 5:46pm