This site will look much better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 |

« The Great One | Main | The "Air Enronization" of the MSM Continues »
According to the Economist,
John Paul Stevens, a Supreme Court justice, criticised the death penalty, saying a substantial number of sentences had been “imposed erroneously”. He insisted the issue should be prominent at next month's confirmation hearings for John Roberts, George Bush's nominee to the court.
I honestly don't know what to think of this. I don't recall ever hearing any of the nine sitting justices comment on a nominee in any manner. Not that there has been a lot of recent precedent for me to observe. And while I have read "A Court Divided: The Rehnquist Court and the Future of Constitutional Law", I am not exactly a SCOTUS scholar or historian by trade.
Does it strike you as odd that a sitting justice would propose a litmus test or comment at all on a nominee? Am I being naïve? Am I reading too much into this? WWSDO'CD?
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.atlasblogged.com/cgi-bin/mt/mtb.cgi/36
WWSDO'CD? Ha!
Personally, I think all differences could be settled in a John Roberts Roast on Comedy Central, a la Pamela Anderson.
Posted by: rammage at August 13, 2005 11:56 AM