<?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>Convictions : SCOTUS</title><link>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/SCOTUS/default.aspx</link><description>Tags: SCOTUS</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP2 (Build: 61129.2)</generator><item><title>"RobertsAlito" Is Not All One Word—The End of Judicial Activism as a Campaign Issue</title><link>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/05/27/robertsalito-is-not-all-one-word-the-end-of-judicial-activism-as-a-campaign-issue.aspx</link><pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2008 19:55:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">b38b617e-fbf1-4816-b2a6-f11ec83af8cb:2994</guid><dc:creator>Doug Kmiec</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/comments/2994.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/commentrss.aspx?PostID=2994</wfw:commentRss><description>Judicial Activism is a largely fictitious issue that won't play in the 2008 campaign.  The friendly differences of opinion among Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Scalia and Thomas illustrate why not....(&lt;a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/05/27/robertsalito-is-not-all-one-word-the-end-of-judicial-activism-as-a-campaign-issue.aspx"&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;img src="http://www.slate.com/blogs/aggbug.aspx?PostID=2994" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/Douglas+W.+Kmiec/default.aspx">Douglas W. Kmiec</category><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/Roberts+Court/default.aspx">Roberts Court</category><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/mccain/default.aspx">mccain</category><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/Judges/default.aspx">Judges</category><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/judicial+activism/default.aspx">judicial activism</category><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/alito/default.aspx">alito</category><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/SCOTUS/default.aspx">SCOTUS</category><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/civil+rights/default.aspx">civil rights</category><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/employment+discrimination/default.aspx">employment discrimination</category><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/ledbetter/default.aspx">ledbetter</category></item><item><title>Justice Clinton?</title><link>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/05/21/justice-clinton.aspx</link><pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2008 13:27:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">b38b617e-fbf1-4816-b2a6-f11ec83af8cb:2928</guid><dc:creator>Dahlia Lithwick</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/comments/2928.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/commentrss.aspx?PostID=2928</wfw:commentRss><description>&lt;P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN:0in 0in 0pt;"&gt;&lt;IMG title="Photograph of Hillary Clinton by Joe Raedle/Getty Images." style="WIDTH:210px;HEIGHT:150px;" height=150 alt="Photograph of Hillary Clinton by Joe Raedle/Getty Images." src="http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/123104/2180680/2190774/2191916/080521_CV_clinton.jpg" width=210 align=left&gt;&lt;A href="http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/05/hillary-on-supreme-court.html"&gt;Jack&lt;/A&gt; and &lt;A href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/05/21/justice-hillary.aspx"&gt;Phil&lt;/A&gt;: I find the notion of &lt;A href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/20/AR2008052001571_pf.html"&gt;an easy confirmation&lt;/A&gt; for the future Justice Hillary Clinton improbable if not impossible for the reasons Jack suggests: The conservative base cares about the judiciary above all. They’d fight even the next moderate, nerdy, and dull nominee to the death. But a lifelong liberal political activist? An effective dealmaker and horse-trader in the model of Bill Brennan or Sandra Day O’Connor? A &lt;I&gt;Clinton? &lt;/I&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN:0in 0in 0pt;"&gt;And given that modern confirmation hearings have everything to do with overturning ancient trash cans, how long would Sen. Clinton’s hearing stretch on? A month? Three? It would certainly be great fun for the folks who believed the Starr Report was a little too thin on the lurid details ...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.slate.com/blogs/aggbug.aspx?PostID=2928" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/hillary+clinton/default.aspx">hillary clinton</category><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/SCOTUS/default.aspx">SCOTUS</category></item><item><title>Justice Hillary?</title><link>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/05/21/justice-hillary.aspx</link><pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2008 12:05:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">b38b617e-fbf1-4816-b2a6-f11ec83af8cb:2927</guid><dc:creator>Phillip Carter</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/comments/2927.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/commentrss.aspx?PostID=2927</wfw:commentRss><description>&lt;P&gt;Jack, thanks for &lt;A href="http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/05/hillary-on-supreme-court.html" target=_blank&gt;flagging&lt;/A&gt; James Andrew Miller's &lt;A href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/20/AR2008052001571_pf.html" target=_blank&gt;op-ed&lt;/A&gt; recommending Hillary Clinton for SCOTUS. I admit it's an intriguing idea, but I think Miller misses the most important argument for Hillary when he writes, "The fact that she hasn't served on a bench before would be inconsequential, considering her experience in law and in government."&amp;nbsp;In fact, Hillary's political experience would be incredibly valuable on the high court. In many ways, she could be an heir to the legacy of &lt;A href="http://www.amazon.com/Justice-All-Earl-Warren-Nation/dp/1594489289" target=_blank&gt;Earl Warren&lt;/A&gt; and &lt;A href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375509259" target=_blank&gt;Sandra Day O'Connor&lt;/A&gt;, who came to the court after decades of experience in elected and public office.&amp;nbsp;As you note, this used to be quite commonplace, with many justices coming to the court after a career in elected politics.&amp;nbsp;Their experience in the political branches of the government added to their work on the bench and a valuable understanding of how politics actually works. &lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;I&gt;Will Hillary be next?&lt;/I&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.slate.com/blogs/aggbug.aspx?PostID=2927" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/hillary+clinton/default.aspx">hillary clinton</category><category domain="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/tags/SCOTUS/default.aspx">SCOTUS</category></item></channel></rss>