From: WSJ.com: Law Blog
Akin Gump's Tom Goldstein is one of the nation's leading Supreme
Court practitioners. He oversees the fantabulous Scotusblog. And
he's got this amazing DIY backstory that's totally uncharacteristic
for successful lawyers. (He also happens to be a helluva nice guy.)
But are he and his tale interesting enough to put on prime-time
network television? NBC apparently thinks so. No joke. Variety has
reported that NBC is developing a show based on Goldstein's early
career, when he sat shoeless in his house pounding away on the Web,
pitching his wares to parties involved in potential Supreme Court
cases, and making a name for himself. According to the article, the
show's working title is "...
Respond to this topic on your own blog
Click and press Ctrl+C to copy and paste this discussion on your blog or site
Related Articles
Re: Tom Goldstein, Objective Centrist Poseur -- By: Ed Whelan
Well, it turns out that Salon’s Glenn Greenwald
wasn’t more impressed than I was by Tom
Goldstein’s posturing himself as the objective
voice of reason. Some excerpts from
Greenwald’s post:  [Goldstein] has
drawn attention to himself by claiming to be an objective,
non-ideological analyst of Supreme Court nominees, but it always
takes the form -- as it has here -- of gushing sycophantic praise
for the nominees, scoffing at criticisms voiced, and disparaging
critics as unhinged ideologues. Â He has done exactly
the same thing with the nominations of John Roberts, Sam Alito,
Sotomayor and now Kagan:Â Â these are
excellent and honorable people who deserve to be on the Court and
all criticisms of them are not just invalid but
disgraceful. That's what he
does:Â Â you wind him up an...
Tom Goldstein, Objective Centrist Poseur -- By: Ed Whelan
Who would have thought that Tom Goldstein, of all people, would
complain that “when the press is called on to
analyze a nuanced question like the views of a Supreme Court
nominee, it’s always so much simpler to quote
an analyst� Isn’t
that a large part of how he’s acquired his
reputation? Â In a ridiculous post, Goldstein complains
that my “extreme views†on Elena
Kagan “are starting to leak into the media,
reported as if they were objective
commentary.â€Â (He pairs me with Glenn
Greenwald, whom I’ll leave to fend for
himself.) What are my “extreme
views†on Kagan that Goldstein objects
to? And where have they been reported as
“objective commentary†(whatever
Goldstein imagines that phrase to mean)? Â
Goldstein alleges that I’ve been going after
Ka...
The Last 100 Years of The Supreme Court
Demographic shifts in the U.S. have left almost nothing untouched,
including the Supreme Court. All people, including Supreme Court
Justices, are living longer, making the lifetime appointments of
Justices much longer, as well. How has this affected the dynamics
of the court, and the public's perception of it?The Last 100 Years
of The Supreme Court is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog Related
posts:Phizer Leaving New London 5 years after Supreme Court Eminent
Domain Ruling Supreme Court to Oregon: Play Time is Over Supreme
Court Considering Landmark 2nd Amendment Gun Case
On Tom Goldstein on Elena Kagan -- By: Ed Whelan
On SCOTUSblog, Tom Goldstein and his colleagues have a long piece
presenting Elena Kagan’s record and spinning
their case for her. I will limit myself here to four comments:
 1. Goldstein states that Kagan, having
“had some experience on Capitol Hill and
significant experience in the Executive Branch,
… has thus worked in the process of governing
and does not merely come from what has recently been criticized
(unfairly, in my view) as the ‘judicial
monastery.’â€Â The
statement that Kagan “does not merely come from
… the ‘judicial
monastery’†obscures the fact that
Kagan has no judicial experience at all. Moreover,
there are several sitting justices—Roberts,
Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, especially—whose
path to the Court went through the “judicial
monasteryâ€...
Polling on the Supreme Court -- By: Ed Whelan
According to the latest Rasmussen Reports poll, Americans
overwhelmingly reject President Obama’s lawless
empathy standard for judging:Â By a margin of 60% to
39%, likely voters believe that the Supreme Court
“[s]hould … make decisions
based on what’s written in the Constitution and
legal precedents†rather than “be
guided mostly by a sense of fairness and justice.â€
 Notwithstanding all the media propaganda about our
supposedly conservative Supreme Court, far more voters (39% to 25%)
believe that the Supreme Court is “too
liberal†than believe that it is
“too conservative.†Â
And 45% of likely voters believe that Supreme Court justices
nominated by President Obama will be “too
liberal†(versus 41% who say “just
right†and 6% who say “too
conservativeâ€)...
