Comments on: Looking Ahead: Thoughts on Sotomayor, Rove, Detainee Trials, and the CIA

By: Professor Will Huhn

Professor Will Huhn — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:26:51 +0000

Jon,
I will respond to your thoughful comments in posts tomorrow and Thursday. Thanks for supplying topics for discussion!

By: Professor Will Huhn

Professor Will Huhn — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:25:04 +0000

Dave,
I will speak to the administrators about adding a box for topic suggestions. I pick topics I am interested in, but I am constrained by the necessity to stick to subjects I know something about, which are primarily constitutional law and jurisprudence. I am undoubtedly also influenced in topic selection by my own biases and prejudices. I'll try to keep an eye on that, but it's hard – especially for someone as opinionated as I am!

By: Dave

Dave — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 18:40:09 +0000

I appreciate your column/blog. It is a good read and usually makes me think. Some of these blogs have degenerated into not much more than "Yo mama so fat" one liners. You seem to have a decent discussion.

I wonder if you shouldn't have a email box for topic suggestions.

I know it's your sandbox, but I would like to see a bit more fairness in topic selection. How about some coverage of the inspector general firing involving former Cav Kevin Johnson. We keep hoping that something was done illegally involving US attorney firings, but we KNOW that the law was broken here.

By: Jon

Jon — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:19:06 +0000

Professor Huhn,

Thank you very much for your frequent blogs. They are wonderful resource for what is happening in our lives for those of us who do not always have the time to read as much as we would like.

Two questions/points

1. My question for you focuses on the label of Justice Sotomayor as an activist judge or a mainstream liberal (depending on what article/blog you read). It seems most conservative groups (and I use the terms liberal and conservative only as they are defined by the media even though I believe those characterizations may not be completely accurate) favor the former while liberal suppporters the latter. However, the almost universal trait seems to be that she is extremely detail oriented and driven by those details when deciding a case (one scholar yesterday going so far to suggest that this attention to detail may be a detriment which I found interesting). Does that trait lend greater insight into what her jurisprudence may be like than the other opinions she has authored? I ask this because I tend to think a person possessing such a trait would be more likely to decide cases more narrowly and based off the facts found in the particular case that comes before the Court. This I could see making her more difficult to predict and more of a swing vote (ala Justice O'Connor). Do you agree with that thought and if not, could you please explain why that may not be the case. Again I have not read the opinions but listening to others reviews of the, this seems a possible conclusion.

2. The point I would like to make goes to your comments on the Justice Department. Accurately or not, I have always viewed the Justice Department as the Country's prosecutor. As such it is an executive office and Article II clearly makes the President the Chief Executive. As such I believe, for better or worse (and in the case of the 8 attorneys fired, the worse), the President should be able to exert a significant amount of control over the Department and what investigations it takes. The check on this significant power is provided by the independent counsels ruled constitiutional in Morrison v. Olsen. Subject to that check the President, in my opinion should be able to exert significant control over the Justice Department