|
I happen to agree that he is probably a very good choice as first - most of those examples used for his "opinions" was a case he was fighting as a lawyer - not his decision as a judge. During his confirmation process the last time he was challenged about the Roe vs Wade statements he made as a representative lawyer and his response was its already a settled issue and the law of the land.
I don't think he actually has any sort of agenda and after doing some research on people that have worked with him, in all cases they respect him for having his own judgement, instead of being swayed by what someone else wants hime to do.
My only concerns with him are his leanings towards corporate support but then that is again as a lawyer. Focusing on his briefs and past lawyer actions are probably not the best thing to look at as those will always be opinionated towards whatever his firms clients wanted.
I would wait until the confirmation process to see what his answers will be on actual bench decisions, although I think they will be scarce and this guy will sail through with no real opposition (of course the congress will have to play the mandatory abortion card just to satisfy the Fox News watchers) - but after that he should be confirmed pretty quickly - based on S Conners statements yesterday - she even thinks he was a confirmable choice.
Everything Ive seen in his actual Judge decision file has been middle of the road so I dont think the makeup of the SC will change at all.
|