be one with more "real world experience." He suggests that the
uniformity of Ivy-league educations has not produced any uniformity of
descisions and therefore lacks validity as a basis for appointment.
However, he also fails to explain what benefit, if any, holding prior
elected office brings to the task of an SC justice. Does it grant any
more clarity of reasoning? We've moved steadily away from the kind of
moralizing of the Warren court, in part because of the acedemic
background of the current crop of justices. Is there a benefit to
going back to moralizing public advocate method? If so, Oniell fails
to explain what that is.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/07/oneill.supreme.court/index.html?eref=rss_politics
No comments:
Post a Comment