. . .[T]he LA Times even had an editorial saying that ACB is qualified but shouldn’t be confirmed. We’re going to enter some silliness here, but ACB got an endorsement from an unlikely source: Noah Feldman. Mr. Feldman is a Harvard Law professor who backed the impeachment of Donald Trump. Feldman spoke highly of Barrett, noting her brilliance as a legal scholar, even though he disagrees with her on almost everything. Even still, she deserves to be on the Court (via Bloomberg):
…here I want to be extremely clear. Regardless of what you or I may think of the circumstances of this nomination, Barrett is highly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.
I disagree with much of her judicial philosophy and expect to disagree with many, maybe even most of her future votes and opinions. Yet despite this disagreement, I know her to be a brilliant and conscientious lawyer who will analyze and decide cases in good faith, applying the jurisprudential principles to which she is committed. Those are the basic criteria for being a good justice. Barrett meets and exceeds them.
I got to know Barrett more than 20 years ago when we clerked at the Supreme Court during the 1998-99 term. Of the thirty-some clerks that year, all of whom had graduated at the top of their law school classes and done prestigious appellate clerkships before coming to work at the court, Barrett stood out. Measured subjectively and unscientifically by pure legal acumen, she was one of the two strongest lawyers. The other was Jenny Martinez, now dean of the Stanford Law School.
Barrett, a textualist who was working for a textualist, Justice Antonin Scalia, had the ability to bring logic and order to disorder and complexity. You can’t be a good textualist without that, since textualism insists that the law can be understood without reference to legislative history or the aims and context of the statute.
(Read more from “Trump’s New SCOTUS Pick Just Received an Unlikely Endorsement” HERE)