One of the benefits, IMO, of having life-time appointed federal judges is that once they are appointed, they become “apolitical,” relying on the Constitution and court rulings regarding the Consitution as their guide to making decisions. Ideally, one of the reasons these appointed judges must be approved by the Senate and questioned by the Senate Judiciary Committee is to rule out those persons who seem to be unwilling to let go of “politics” in order to rule fairly. I doubt that Bush–and any other president– personally knew the Mississippi district or appellate court judges he appointed, and I seriously doubt that he knew how they would rule or followed any of their rulings after he appointed them.

Whereas, elected state judges are political because they run for their offices on the party ticket and receive party and party affiliated monies to gain their office.

I’ll have to learn more about the differences in the two earlier redistricting plans you mentioned before I could agree with your statement that “It is clear to me that politics effected the three judge court’s selection of the redistricting plan in the Mississippi reditricting case early in this decade.” Could it be that the chosen plan was the better plan for the state or that the chosen plan could simply have appeared to be more fair to the whole? Is it “clear” to you that politics affected the earlier decision because the decision was made by Republican-appointed judges? Should “political” cases be decided by judges of mixed Dem-Repub appointments to lesson the perceived political bias?

However, particularly in cases with political/economic implications, you can usually infer something of the action’s motivation from the background of the attorney prosecuting the action, even if the named plaintiff is a cypher. It’s worth remarking upon and thinking about as a general rule.

At first blush and even after your first answer, I thought you were either attaching it to those causes or discounting the merits of this case based upon the lawyer’s political opinions. As an example, had you written “the lead attorney for this case is Lawyer Joe who was a follower of Charles Manson . . .” That affects my opinion on the attorney and the case.

From your last answer, I see that you just think it is part of the story solely because it gives the reader the knowledge that this attorney is politically right of right. I don’t see that as relevant, but I also would not think a lawyer with an entire career lawyering on the left is relevant. So, I may be an exception.

I’ll try it another way: Do you think I’ve mentioned something bad about this guy? These are facts about his bio. Check out his wikipedia page, or any of the pages for his organizations or school. Have I insulted him by mentioning them?

“I have never heard of him before your post. ” There was a New Yorker profile of him and his university a few years back. I’d heard of him. The stretch is the media (Wall Street Journal and the New York Times for two) calling him a major con law figure, which I wouldn’t do. He did a lot of the lawyering for the Concerned Women for American in the 80s and early 90s, and his homeschool stuff has come to the attention of people following education law issues (me included). Just being able to establish and run and vaguely accredit that college of his suggests some power.

With the exception possibly of this case– I don’t see how it’s religious conservatism– his whole career has been within the political movement, either as a lawyer (doing amicus briefs in the Supreme Court for Concerned Women for America, doing cases attacking education laws relating to home schooling, founding that very conservative college) has been about religious political conservative action. It’s totally his story, and this lawsuit is his in a large sense. It’s central to the story. What I didn’t do was draw conclusions, because I’m not sure what the point of this lawsuit is.

But I did not say the things you are trying to put in my mouth.

But I did say this is a political case– it’s redistricting. The odd part about it is that I don’t see a clear partisan advantage either way, but it is certainly political.

It is clear to me that politics effected the three judge court’s selection of the redistricting plan in the Mississippi reditricting case early in this decade. The three judge court had 2 plans to pick, and the picked the Republican favored plan. And the state judge who’d previously ruled picked the Democratic favored plan.

I don’t think this lawsuit has enough merit to it for the outcome to be effected that way, but that’s just my prediction about the merits.

Does your statement above mean that you think that these federal judges will toe the party line in their judgments? If so, can you give some past examples upon which you base that opinion. Do you believe that Bush gave them some directive when they were appointed to follow the party line?

1. “Definitely a power of some sort within religious conservatism” is a stretch. I have never heard of him before your post. I am a Christian conservative, and I disagree with Pat Robertson more than I agree with him. At the same time, I will concede that Robertson is a “a power of some sort within religious conservatism.”

2. If there is no logical connection to this cause and his prior causes, you are stretching to attach it to his Christian conservatism at this time. I think a more logical assumption at this time is his desire for attention/publicity. You must have also considered such a motive given the further lack of evidence.

3. Your “Finally” paragraph is akin to the assumption that Obama’s comment to Joe the Plumber about “redistributing wealth” automatically assumes President Obama is a socialist. I am not saying that until Scalia speaks nothing is known. What I am saying is that taking this unknown’s position and applying it to the originalist’s position is as folly as taking an out of context quote and ascertaining a “theory of governement” interpretaion to it.

I am not saying that the views expressed in this lawsuit are those of any large group within conservatism, or religious conservatism. I have no idea, and know nothing that would suggest that. On the other hand, this particular lawyer is definitely a power of some sort within religious conservatism, and, for whatever reason, he’s picked this issue to champion.

Next, I have no idea why he picked this cause. I said that several ways, above, and I think clearly. I can’t see a logical connect with this cause and his prior causes.

Finally, I just think you’re wrong to think that we won’t know what originalist thinking is until Scalia speaks. There are a lot of different points of view bundled up in that notion, and this is one instance where the textualism of religious conservatism may also produce an odd kind of textualist view of the constitution.