Replies

I agree, with you. Normally, the left would try to rile up their own powerbase against this guy by exposing the NRA (for example) cases he worked on. But the left has discovered that they can do more damage by breaking up the guy's support from the right. So I wouldn't expect to see a fair expose on all his cases. They will hammer on his "liberal" tendencies and get way more mileage than bringing up his "conservative" tendencies. Our responsibility as conservatives, is to not fall for the bait, but focus on the facts.

Normally, the left would try to rile up their own powerbase against this guy by exposing the NRA (for example) cases he worked on.

If only we had some NRA cases he'd worked on! That's kind of my point. Give me a few of those, please. They are, if they exist, on the public record and are no secret from our Dim opponents with their legions of trial lawyers. So I'd like to hear something conservative he's actually done or wrote or the arguments he made on cases for which he was chief counsel.

Our responsibility as conservatives, is to not fall for the bait, but focus on the facts.

By all means. I'd just like some facts, his own cases or legal writings, that tell me something unambiguosly conservative and constructionist about him. What, precisely, warrants all this conservative confidence in him? Surely there's something more than a few vague comments from Mark Levin and Ted Olson?

Well, perhaps we'll have to wait until more info comes out. These kinds of lawyers have a vast paperwork trail.