Another profile in courage: Noah Feldman
This sort of thing is unusual these days on the left:
And here I want to be extremely clear. Regardless of what you or I may think of the circumstances of this nomination [Feldman disapproves], Barrett is highly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.
I disagree with much of her judicial philosophy and expect to disagree with many, maybe even most of her future votes and opinions. Yet despite this disagreement, I know her to be a brilliant and conscientious lawyer who will analyze and decide cases in good faith, applying the jurisprudential principles to which she is committed. Those are the basic criteria for being a good justice. Barrett meets and exceeds them.
The Democrats are challenged by the Barrett nomination. If they attack her religion, they risk alienating some Catholics. If they attack her competence, they risk alienating women. They have already tried to attack the process by which she was nominated – and they will continue to attack it – but then they appear hypocritical. It will be hard to accuse her of the old tried and true, sexual harrasment or abuse, although they may somehow try that.
By the way, here’s a refresher on another attack long ago:
[NOTE: At Ann Althouse’s, you can read Clarence Thomas’ account of how Joe Biden lied and tricked him.]
I read Feldman earlier, and marveled at his statement, “I disagree with much of her judicial philosophy and expect to disagree with many, maybe even most of her future votes and opinions.”
So he says, about himself.
Apparently Feldman is one of those who seeks to legislate and dictate from the bench, unlike Barrett.
Then he goes on to say, “Yet despite this disagreement, I know her to be a brilliant and conscientious lawyer who will analyze and decide cases in good faith, applying the jurisprudential principles to which she is committed.”
Apparently Feldman holds different jurisprudential beliefs.
I do not like Feldman, not at all. He is currying favoritism at best; at worst, he is simply a two-timing lawyer, speaking from both sides of his mouth simultaneously.
Michele Dauber, who actually teaches (horror of horrors!) at Stanford Law, indulged herself in an absolutely unhinged tirade against Noah Feldman (see the posting at Powerline), while the current pope of anti-racism, the wealthy and lionized Ibram Kendi, attacked the Notorious ACB for having adopted (horror of horrors!) two black children from Haiti. The deranged lunacy from leftists is such that no rational person can really understand its etiology or its possible cure.
j e:
I just this moment published a lengthy post about Kendi and his tweet, as well as what’s behind it. Please see this.
Cicero:
Curry favor with whom? Believe me, his entire leftist cohort is furious with him. He is courageous.
Speaking out of both sides of his mouth? Nothing he says there contradicts anything else he says. He is speaking from a time-honored position of respect for those with whom you disagree, if you think they have integrity and intelligence. That is what he is saying, and it’s not just a lawyer-ish sentiment. It’s one of the pillars on which this country stands.
I’m expecting some male that worked with Amy Coney Barrett to claim that she sexually harassed him and tried to rape him.
…the Notorious ACB for having adopted (horror of horrors!) two black children from Haiti.
j e: Some Democrats are also up in arms for “the Notorious ACB” as an appropriation of “the Notorious RGB,” while ignoring that the latter was an appropriation of “the Notorious BIG,” a renowned but typically thug rapper, who was murdered by other blacks.
Michelle Dauber – An incredibly vile entity.
The Democrats are challenged by the Barrett nomination. If they attack her religion, they risk alienating some Catholics. If they attack her competence, they risk alienating women. They have already tried to attack the process by which she was nominated – and they will continue to attack it – but then they appear hypocritical. It will be hard to accuse her of the old tried and true, sexual harrasment or abuse, although they may somehow try that.
neo: Agreed. Plus Barrett’s already been through a bruising confirmation in 2017 for her seat on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court.
This is why I’m expecting the Democrats to lean heavily on stalling tactics.
Neo-
If you cannot see my simple point, I cannot help it.
Further to my point Feldman respects her wisdom, her integrity, her intelligence but will not agree with her decisions. That is nuts. Are we back to Clay v. Calhoun? A decision is either right or wrong.
Watching that Clarence Thomas clip brings chills. He is clearly an angry and abused man, yet contains his anger and directs it brilliantly at the committee. It was informative to see Joe Biden, casually cast on his chair, pen held in an affected pose – he knows the camera will find him – and so thoroughly disrespectful of the person of Clarence Thomas and the moment. He was a self-aggrandizing creep then, and a befuddled and diminished one now.
“Feldman respects her wisdom, her integrity, her intelligence but will not agree with her decisions. That is nuts. Are we back to Clay v. Calhoun? A decision is either right or wrong.” Cicero
So two intelligent, wise and persons of unquestioned integrity must agree with each other?
Have you never faced a decision where the only choices were bad or a bit worse? Where there is no ‘right’ decision but where circumstance forces that the wrong but necessary be chosen? See; Churchill and Coventry. Yes, Churchill did what he could, increasing air defenses and strengthening fighter cover but he didn’t warn the residents to flee. Churchill correctly decided that keeping the secret that the Brits had broken the ‘unbreakable’ German code was necessary to the war effort.
There is a difference between correct and right.
G.B.
Sophistry.
“So two intelligent, wise and persons of unquestioned integrity must agree with each other?”
On matters of fundamental constitutional importance, Yes.
Which is understood to mean the persons do not invent law based on self-perceived penumbras and emanations.
SCOTUS does not deal with choices only of “bad or a bit worse”, and you know it. Or should.
Yes, quite unusual. In fact, downright shocking. I don’t think I’ll see something like this again in my lifetime, no kidding.
Cicero,
It is not sophistry to provide a real world example of when there is no morally ‘right’ choice. But apparently it was a wasted effort.
Re: “On matters of fundamental constitutional importance, Yes.”
Jefferson and Adam’s disagreed most strongly on matters of fundamental constitutional importance…
Do they qualify as intelligent and wise men of integrity?
Church of Rome is used to being attacked and also attacking others for heresy. Not sure what the big deal is here.
The Vatican’s own exorcists have blown the whistle on how many Lucifer worshippers and pro demons are in the hierarchy.
Feldman, in expressing his honest, favorable opinion of ACB, demonstrated utter—and unfortunately rare—decency in these benighted, partisan times.
And in so doing, he’s toast. (Offering a favorable opinion of anyone associated with the Devil Incarnate—especially on such a critical issue as the upcoming SC Justice nomination—is JUST NOT DONE amongst the beautiful people.)
He just might end up having to room together with Dershowitz.
(“The Odd Couple” revisited?….)
G.B.:
Now you sneak “morally” into the picture.
The Constitution now exists. It is not being drafted. Its language is pretty clear on most points. Thus “Originalists”, who do not legislate from the bench, unlike those to whom you might give standing for their intelligence and their perception of “emanations” and thus proceed to invent new “rights”.
If one wishes to modify the Constitution, there is the Amendment process!
Cicero,
I think most folk here agree with you about Originalism, or are at least sympathetic to the view. That isn’t the matter in dispute. By extension, I suspect most folk here agree with you that Feldman ought to be an Originalist rather than taking the usual “My Amendment Process Is Called Convenient Reinterpretation By Anachronism” approach favored by left-leaning jurists. That also is (I think) not in dispute.
When your son makes, for the first time, an unprompted effort to clean up his room, you praise him to the heavens even if he missed half the crap on the floor and kicked a lot of the rest under the bed. (Even more so if he’s the first ten-year-old on the block to do so!) You don’t start off by pointing out everything he got wrong: That’s ungracious, and it’s no way to encourage good behavior. There’ll be time enough later to qualify your praise with constructive criticism, but the first thing he hears ought to be “well done.”
In the same fashion it makes sense to praise Feldman for what he got right here. I mean, yes, he ought to be an originalist and isn’t; and yes, he probably holds dumb or destructive opinions on a host of other topics; and yes, he is, to Clarence Thomas, what a pimple-on-the-buttocks is, to an Olympic athlete. Yes, yes, yes, to all of that.
But, taking all those things for granted, Neo’s right: Feldman said something nice about Barrett, and he said it at a time when doing so carries personal and professional risk for him, and unless he was being held at gunpoint while he said it, it seems that he said it for no other obvious reason than that he knows it’s true. And no other left-of-center person on the block has done likewise. (Heck, the Neo-Marxist SJW block of the Left denies that “truth” even exists as a category.)
In saying this, Feldman is head-and-shoulders above the general level on the Left, and that, as a matter of justice, merits positive comment. There’ll be plenty of opportunity, on some other occasion, to catalogue his other faults.