The Tortellini

Trial laywers hedging their bets in 2008

The Times reports today that trial lawyers aren't throwing their weight behind John Edwards the way they did in 2003, largely because the democratic field of candidates is so substantial this year. The defections make sense to me, but what really puzzles me is why so many trial lawyers are backing Joe Biden instead. At their annual convention in Chicago last month, trial lawyers held fundraisers for several of the candidates, and the committee hosting Biden's event was an all-star line up that included past AAJ president Ken Suggs.

Biden, of course, has no chance of winning, so I have to wonder what's driving this. One lawyer suggested to me that some of these big donors are simply true believers who think Biden is the best guy for the job. I'd like to believe that, but I can't help but wonder if at least a few think Biden could end up as a federal judge or attorney/solicitor general (rather than secretary of state, as so many people are speculating) in a democratic administration, where he might be able to return the favor....

Giuliani's Legal Eagles

Of all the Republicans who've thus far declared their intention to seek the presidency in 2008, Rudy Giuliani strikes me as the one that liberals could most stomach. He's got the whole 9/11 leadership thing going on; he's sort of an old-fashioned Republican in the sense that he's comfortable with his own infidelities and isn't obsessed with what other people do in the privacy of their own homes or doctor's offices. But Giuliani's legal philosophy actually says a lot more about what kind of president he would be than whether he supports gay marriage, and in this area, he doesn't need to do much to boost his conservative bona fides.

Giuliani has already given a couple of speeches championing limits on class actions. And ABC's Jan Crawford Greenberg noted earlier this month that Hiz Honor has tapped former Bush solicitor general Ted Olson, a longtime friend from the Reagan administration, to head his "judicial advisory council." If you recall, Olson argued Bush v. Gore before the U.S. Supreme Court and is revered in conservative legal circles. Greenberg asked Olson what sort of judges Giuliani would likely appoint to the high court Olson suggested that Giuliani would be enthusiastic about D.C. Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown.

Even if you ignore some of her anti-government rantings from the bench, it's worth noting that a minority of members of the ABA committee rated Brown "not qualified" to serve on the D.C. Circuit. The California Judicial Commission gave her a "not qualified" rating when she was nominated for California's high court a decade ago, partly because of her unorthodox view of the Constitution, but also because she was too slow producing opinions. Maybe with the skimpy case load at the U.S. Supreme Court these days, a plodding opinion-writing record isn't necessarily a disqualifier for service. But still, the fact that Giuliani would choose ideology over competency in a judge isn't exactly a selling point on his candidacy in my book.