As Deborah Rhode describes, “When 1,100 Michigan elementary students were asked to describe what life would be like if they were the opposite sex, over 40 percent of the girls saw advantages to being male; they would have better jobs, higher incomes, and more respect. Ninety-five percent of the boys saw no advantage to being female, and a substantial number thought suicide would be preferable.”

I personally think that we should be extremely reluctant to use a recall mechanism for an unpopular decision simply because of the message it sends about judicial independence.

As Deborah Rhode describes, “When 1,100 Michigan elementary students were asked to describe what life would be like if they were the opposite sex, over 40 percent of the girls saw advantages to being male; they would have better jobs, higher incomes, and more respect. Ninety-five percent of the boys saw no advantage to being female, and a substantial number thought suicide would be preferable.”

If that were a winning argument, Donald Trump could get anybody off the bench on his cases by just something deeply offensive based on their background.

The cliché is what are the qualifications for a federal Court of Appeals judge is somebody who knew a senator once. I mean the process of selection is deeply political and yet we expect the result to somehow stand above it.

Lawyers like to leave no stone unturned, provided they can charge by the stone.

Ironically enough, if the case involves race, and one claims that race is a disqualifying factor, nobody could hear the case. Everybody comes to these cases with some preconceptions, and the premise of our judicial system is that judges by training and by ethical codes are obligated to set those prejudices aside and to decide on the facts and the law. And to claim that somebody can't simply because of their racial identity is deeply offensive.