Sunday, March 14, 2010
I won't repeat the "liberal" case. You can read it yourself in the WSJ. I'm interested in the "conservative" case, which asserts that these lawyers volunteered to defend the individuals in question. Hence, they may have political prejudices that would preclude them from making unbiased policy judgments as members of the Justice Department. I won't argue the case. However, it struck me that the argument was the exact opposite of the "conservative" argument in favor of the appointments to the Supreme Court of justices Roberts and Alito. In the case of Roberts and Alito the argument was that their political views shouldn't matter. They are required to interpret the law impartially, just as an engineer is required to design a bridge impartially and to make the bridge as safe as possible. One doesn't question the political views of an engineer; why question the views of a judge?
It's a good example of "conservative" inconsistency.