The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Knives Out For Judge Childs From #TeamKruger
I, for one, am enjoying this circular stabbing squad.
David Lat's Original Jurisdiction Substack is a vital resource to understand the Supreme Court vacancy. When I read David's columns, I try to gather whose perspectives he is filtering. Today's newsletter comes from #TeamKruger--literally. Apparently the Kruger network (likely Justice Stevens clerks, former DOJ employees, and academics) is unhappy that Childs and Jackson are getting too much oxygen. So they sent David missives that he converted into a collective "open letter." Apparently, Justice Kruger "would be mortified if she knew" her team lobbied for her. But they lobbied anyway. (Update: In an earlier version of this post, I wrote that #TeamKruger actually wrote the letter. I now realize David assembled different perspectives to form the letter).
First, #TeamKruger criticized Judge Childs's "small army of operatives, politicians, and pundits pushing for her." And, they write, Biden "should not choose a justice based on political favor-trading or political fallout." You hear that Rep. Clyburn?
Second, #TeamKruger suggests that Biden cannot reliably count on Child's vote. Rather, Biden would pick Childs because of "such niceties as a compelling personal story." (And what really happened to her father!?) Plus Childs is a black woman who may exhibit conservativism! (The Washington Post could not be reached for comment):
If this were a 6-3 Court in the other direction, i.e., in favor of liberals, Judge Childs might be a great pick. With that kind of dominance, you'd have the luxury of picking someone based on such niceties as a compelling personal story and a non-Ivy educational background, and things like her lack of appellate experience, her being a decade older, and her conservatism in employment law and criminal law wouldn't matter that much. You could lose her vote in the occasional case and still prevail.
Burn.
Third, #TeamKruger says that Childs, as well as Jackson, would have to "learn on the job." (Elena Kagan could not be reached for comment).
Judge Jackson, who has been an appellate judge for less than a year, and Judge Childs, who has never been an appellate judge, haven't had the opportunity to develop these skills in the same way. And the Supreme Court—at least for a liberal justice at this critical point in our nation's history, with abortion, gun control, and affirmative action on the line—is no place for learning on the job.
Ouch.
I, for one, am enjoying this circular stabbing squad. And it will get uglier.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This reads exactly like a long Twitter post.
These lawyer skanks are all big government hooers. The least toxic, the least obnoxiously offensive is Childs.
Remember, all that matters is skin color and real or perceived gender.
Actually, it seems that ideology and voting the right way count more. God forbid a moderate black woman gets on the Court.
So true....in 1822 and 1922.
" Remember, all that matters is skin color and real or perceived gender. "
That would explain the remarkably White, striking male Republican judicial nominees.
And the extraordinarily White, inexplicably male roster at the Volokh Conspiracy.
Carry on, clingers.
I urge you to take a little self reflection and/ or counseling.
If the concern is getting the nomination confirmed, Childs seems an easy pick. Lindsay Graham and Tim Scott, both conservative Republicans, have almost endorsed her, and a number of other conservatives are likely to follow. In normal times, that would make her a no-brainer for the nomination. But we do not live in such times.
I think that if the post-Scalia era has proved anything, it's that there's no price to be paid for complete partisanship. As long as the nominee is going to get 50(+1) votes, it ultimately doesn't matter. Pick the confirmable nominee you want, not the one likely to get votes from the other side.
Also, I wouldn't rely on Lindsay Graham's insinuations if they were in writing and notarized with a liquidated damages clause of $10,000,000 if he didn't vote to confirm. He would have absolutely zero compunction about claiming that she drank her water funny during the confirmation hearings, and therefore he reluctantly can't vote to support her.
As of now, Graham may be helpful though, because they only have 49 votes in the Senate. If I were Biden I would at least give him a call.
If Democrats cared about the Supreme Court then Hillary would have won in 2016.
That might be true, but only if caring about the Supreme Court were the paramount, if not only, consideration. Apparently there were others.
Trump was less repulsive than Clinton. Biden was not as toxic as Trump. Enough said.
Then why did millions more people vote for Clinton?
Trump received more votes the second election than the first against Clinton. There are some votes/ states that vote on policy. Biden won because he wasn't Clinton even though Trump increased votes with minority voters.
"Also, I wouldn't rely on Lindsay Graham's insinuations if they were in writing"
Do you actually base this on anything in reality? IE, if Graham says he would support a judge, do you have evidence he wouldn't?
"https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/13/supreme-court-gop-senator-says-michelle-childs-would-get-60-votes.html
"Do you actually base this on anything in reality?"
Presumably David Nieporent can read the Senator's mind. It's bizarre how common such claims have become in the last five or six years.
Graham has little acquaintance with consistency.
2015: "[Donald Trump is] a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot. He doesn’t represent my party. He doesn’t represent the values that the men and women who wear the uniform are fighting for. I’d rather lose without Donald Trump than try to win with with him. I wish he would leave the party. I don’t care if he runs as an independent. If we lose the 2016 election, so be it. I want to be in a category of 1% who said ‘B.S., this is not who we are as a party, this is not who we are as a nation.’"
2021: "I hope President Trump runs again."
Sure: the fact that Graham is a spineless weasel who would throw his own mother into Gitmo for a chance to go golfing with Donald Trump.
My comment wasn't judicial confirmation specific; it was about Graham's integrity in general.
"I, for one, am enjoying this circular stabbing squad. "
A typically childish JB comment
Just another day at a polemical, downscale, unedited, disaffected, censorious, hypocritical, right-wing, faux libertarian blog.
No one is making you read it!
OK, Boomer. The resignation letter,please. You need to be replaced by a diverse. Until you make it personal, STFU, you vile lawyer.
Has the JB ouevre taught you nothing? What's good for Josh is good for America!
Damn typos.
EDIT FEATURE!!!
Especially since a circular stabbing squad is actually pretty effective. IIRC from high school English class, that is what did in Julius Caesar. Nobody else got hurt.
"I wrote that #TeamKruger actually wrote the letter."
Good thing those libel laws haven't been reformed yet...
Prof Volokh would have a new topic to post on: do hashtags have standing to bring suit.
#ArticleIII
I believe EV posted multiple times about that cop in Louisiana who was hurt during a BLM protest in which protesters blocked the road, and the cop brought suit.
Among other defendants, he sued #blacklivesmatter, and the court actually did feel the need to issue a ruling that one can't sue a hashtag.
" "I wrote that #TeamKruger actually wrote the letter."
Good thing those libel laws haven't been reformed yet... "
Just Prof. Blackman showing us what he knows about journalism and the Volokh Conspiracy showing us that it flouts the idea of editing -- as usual.
Carry on, clingers. We'll let you know how long and how far, of course.
How, pray tell, does one flout an idea? If you wanted a fancy-ish word, "eschews" would have worked.
#TeamKruger probably isn’t a sufficiently defined group. Group libel doesn’t work.
I still don't get how anyone associated with Kruger gets to accuse anyone else of conservativism on criminal law. She is a RELIABLE vote to affirm death sentences in California and has voted to do so on numerous occasions, including authoring an opinion that held that sentencing a Black defendant to death with an all white jury was fine. If she were put on the high court, she would very likely be somewhere near where Barrett is, and maybe even to her right, on death penalty cases.
"somewhere near where Barrett is, and maybe even to her right, on death penalty cases."
I'm not being facetious, what *is* Barrett's approach to the death penalty?
I apologize if I'm being obtuse, but why is this so obviously wrong that no elaboration is required?
" I, for one, am enjoying this circular stabbing squad. And it will get uglier. "
Is it as enjoyable as watching Trump call Heidi Cruz ugly, Ted Cruz warn Trump to stop, Trump call Heidi Cruz a pig, Ted Cruz warn Trump again, Trump call Heidi Cruz a hideously ugly pig and circulated photographic evidence of ugliness, Ted Cruz ask Trump to campaign with him, then Ted Cruz spend years figuratively fellating Trump?
Ted 'Insult My Wife And I Will Lick Your Scrotum' Cruz -- maybe the best call by Prof. Volokh since the John Eastman endorsement!
Of course not. It's fun to watch the other side squabble. It's frustrating when it's your side. Ideally both sides would be adults and act rationally both with respect to their side and their political opponents. But we don't live in an ideal world.
What is frustrating is thinking about how confused the Cruz children must be about the issue of how a father is supposed to act when someone attacks their Mommy.
No one willing to stick up for Ted Cruz?
Those reports that the guy has no friends might be accurate.
Wikipedia edit wars:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/former-clerk-edits-wikipedia-bios-of-potential-supreme-court-nominees-report
Meow! Hiss!
Off topic a bit but Childs is Catholic. She'd be the second black Catholic on the court even though the overwhelming majority of blacks are Protestants.
As a California admitted lawyer who cares about the depth of talent and qualifications on the Court, count me as an advocate for Justice Kruger. Pointing out that she is the most talented, and best qualified candidate under consideration is not improper. I'd be embarrassed if the legal profession didn't do so.
Whoa, there!
You can't point out that someone is "most talented" or "best qualified"! That implies that the other candidates are inferior which is racist.
This is incoherent "My Team, My Team, Rah rah rah!" nonsense.