Ah, the Fresh Smell of Logic
Michael Kinsley is right on today regarding the Estrada fillibuster. Estrada defends his evasiveness on his judicial views with the the following line: "I'm very firmly of the view that although we all have views on a number of subjects from A to Z, the job of a judge is to subconsciously put that aside and look at each case … with an open mind."

But as Kinsley rightly puts it:

Potential judges should not reveal their views on legal issues because a judge should have an open mind? Hiding your views doesn't make them go away. If the problem is judges having views on judicial topics, rather than judges expressing those views, then allowing people to become judges without revealing their views is a solution that doesn't address the problem. And if the problem is judges who fail to put their previous views aside, rather than judges having such views to begin with, then allowing judicial nominees to hide those views until it's too late is still a solution that is logically unrelated to the problem.

The Law should be based upon logical reasoning. You think that a qualifed judge would find this logical flaw in this argument about judicial pre-judging.

Unless, of course, their "real reason for evasiveness is the fear that if some senators knew what his views are, they would vote against him."

Then, using this 'judicial prejudice avoidance' obfuscation would indicate a good lawyer, but not a good judge.
- posted by Anonymous @ 11:22 AM