<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Re:  Perhaps a &amp;quot;Lawyer's Lawyer&amp;quot; ...</title><link>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/05/20/re-perhaps-a-lawyer-s-lawyer.aspx</link><description>Diane, we're in full agreement on the point that the nation would benefit from the appointment of a "lawyer's lawyer" to the Supreme Court . While I can think of a number of federal judges (and even a couple of law professors) who I think would do a fine</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP2 (Build: 61129.2)</generator></channel></rss>