Glenn Reynolds is banging the drum for Randy Barnett for Attorney general again. Aren’t you tired of that?
I’m not, and neither is Ilya Somin.
About Lance
I want to thank everybody who has encouraged me over the past few years to do this. I doubt it will hold but a few people's interest, but that is okay with me. Special thanks go to Peter over at http://www.liberalcapitalist.com.
I value my privacy a great deal, so I will guess you will have to get to know me over time to find out much. I am in the financial services, wealth management, investing or whatever you want to call it business. I have children, my oldest is entering college.
I have no great or imposing academic background, my grades varied from high enough to get invited to an honors program at my university to frustrating enough to cause my father great grief. My major was history, with a minor in ethics. My main interest towards the end was in the history of economic ideas before life took a turn and I ended up never going on to graduate school. However, I have a fair knowledge of history, economics, investing and would probably be considered well read. My tastes are eclectic and I pretty much find the entire world interesting.
I have an enduring interest in how people learn about and analyze the world; my posts here will examine this topic in detail over time. I make no claims to be above the very biases and errors I see in others, in fact it is my belief that we are incapable of escaping them, only moderating their control over us.
I am a member of no political party, but I would broadly consider myself a man of the right. I am inclined to free market economics, limited government and a fairly narrow view of the role of the state. A small L libertarian if you will. However, if you are looking for broad based "the left believes..." or "wingers are so...." types of attacks on liberals, conservatives, neo-cons or whatever enemy you want to slam, look elsewhere.
Lance
Why? I don’t know anything about the man, and Reynolds’ and Volokh seem to argue that he’d make a good pick because he’d be a good pick. One of Reynolds’ links does point to a disturbing article about the state of the DoJ under Gonzales; if it’s even half true, Gonzales should NEVER have been made USAG. But that doesn’t say that Barnett should be. Nor does the fact that Barnett has written some popular books on "natural law" or is a "rock star" professor of the law.
So, again, why is Barnett a good candidate to replace Gonzales? Or why is he a better candidate than, say, the AG of Idaho or even the local attorney down the street?
I look forward to your reply.
If you want a well considered reply Michael might be a better choice than I.
My own reason is I like his view of the law. It isn’t exactly mine, but it is in the general thrust of how I think the law should be viewed. He is also independent and unlikely to kowtow to political expediency. For all the complaints about him, Ashcroft was very ethical. I think it was Matthew Yglesias who pointed out after he left that the left might regret having him go. Ideologically he wasn’t what the left wanted, but that wasn’t going to happen anyway. He did operate the AG’s office in an above board manner. Barnett would as well. It would also be a good springboard to get him more consideration for the Supreme Court. I would love that.