Blogging Judicial Nominations: Apropos my suggestion a few days ago that blogs will play a big role in future Supreme Court confirmation battles, I note that the National Review has just started a blog apparently devoted solely primarily to arguing in favor of confirming the President's judicial nominees: Bench Memos.

  Estimated time before a mirror image anti-nominee blog appears on the website of a left-of-center magazine: I'll give it about 72 hours. (Hat tip: How Appealing)

  UPDATE: When you're checking out Bench Memos, be sure to read this post by Ramesh Ponnuru on Ken Starr's views of the filibuster. Seems like an important scoop.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. More Starr on the Filibuster:
  2. Blogging Judicial Nominations:
More Starr on the Filibuster: Those following the story about CBS's possible misrepresentation of Ken Starr's comments on the filibuster (get up to speed here) might be interested in a larger excerpt of the e-mail exchange quoted yesterday by Ramesh Ponnuru over at Bench Memos. The e-mail is making the rounds, and I have verified its authenticity. The exchange starts with Kirkland & Ellis associate Steve Engel e-mailing Starr (a former Kirkland partner) to see if he was misquoted. Starr responds with this e-mail:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Starr, Ken"
Sent: 05/11/2005 06:53 PM
To: "'Steven Engel'"
Subject: RE: misquoted on filibusters?
I just watched the CBS report. Totally wrong employment of the snippet: I was condemning the Democrats for challenging judges based on philosophy. It was in that context that I made the radical departure point. Wow. Ken
Later, Starr adds a fuller explanation in another e-mail, forwarding on his response to Engel:
  I have now seen the CBS report. Attached is an exchange with Steve Engel at K&E-Washington, who alerted me earlier today to other dimensions of the wild misconstruction of what I said in the Gloria Borger interview.
  Brief background: I sat on Saturday with Gloria for 20 minutes (approx.) and had a wide-ranging on-camera discussion. In the piece that I have now seen, and which I gather is being lavishly quoted, CBS employed two snippets. The "radical departure" snippet was specifically addressed — although this is not evidenced whatever from the clip — to the practice of invoking judicial philosopy as a grounds for voting against a qualified nominee of integrity and experience. I said in sharp language that that practice was wrong. I contrasted the current practice . . . with what occurred during Ruth Ginsburg's nomination process, as numerous Republicans voted (rightly) to confirm a former ACLU staff lawyer. They disagreed with her positions as a lawyer, but they voted (again, rightly) to confirm her. Why? Because elections, like ideas, have consequences. . . . In the interview, I did indeed suggest, and have suggested elsewhere, that caution and prudence be exercised (Burkean that I am) in shifting/modifying rules (that's the second snippet), but I likewise made clear that the "filibuster" represents an entirely new use (and misuse)of a venerable tradition.
  Anyway, our folks here at Pepperdine's Public Information Office (who arranged the CBS interview) are scrambling to get the full transcript of the entire interview. But our friends are way off base in assuming that the CBS snippets, as used, represent (a) my views, or (b) what I in fact said.
  Kindly feel free to share this message with anyone you deem appropriate. Ken

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. More Starr on the Filibuster:
  2. Blogging Judicial Nominations: