Ambassador to the Vatican (Joe)

Conservative law professor/blogger Stephen Bainbridge thinks that appointing Doug Kmiec[1] as the U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See would be an insult to the Vatican and to the Pope.  He follows up with a non-responsive response to the challenge that under his views, maybe Obama shouldn't appoint an ambassador at all.

What I find interesting about this -- apart from Henry Farrell's puzzling claim that Bainbridge is "thoughtful" -- is that Bainbridge has apparently talked himself into the position that it would be an "insult," or at minimum "impudent," for Barack Obama to appoint anyone who supported Barack Obama.

[1] Kmiec is an anti-choice Catholic who supported Obama on the theory that overall he was better than McCain, and that he was better than McCain with respect to abortion on the grounds that abortion will remain federal law in any event and that an Obama Administration will actually result in fewer lives lost to abortion than a McCain Administration.  Bainbridge's horse in this race is abortion.

Comments

[Dean C. Rowan]

One of these days I'll understand all the hoopla over abortion. I really don't believe reasonable minds can disagree. 'nuff said. I'm risking domestic trouble here. In any case, I just love Bainbridge's schoolboy mode of arguing. About midway through the post he writes, "Obama ran on the most pro-abortion rights platform...," styling the phrase in bold type. But the full sentence begins with "I remain convinced that..." and the phrase concludes with "...in memory..."

It's like muttering under one's breath, "I never said...," and then loudly trumpeting, "you're an idiot!"

[joe]

I have trouble believing he's even making his arguments in good faith. For example, when he dismisses the idea that there's an Establishment Clause problem with having diplomatic relations with the Holy See, he says that argument is beyond the pale because courts have "refused to even consider the issue," citing cases in which courts have dismissed on justiciability grounds. This means that courts have refused to consider the merits of the question for non-merits reasons -- NOT that the argument on the merits is weak. I don't have an opinion on whether there's a real First Amendment concern there, which is a non sequitur that Bainbridge raised for no apparent reason, but it does exemplify the decidedly not grown-up, not calmly deliberative, not reasoned way in which he's approaching this.

[Andrew R.]

One delicious and unfamiliar feeling I've been having lately: we no longer have to worry all the time what conservative ideologues are fussing about on any given issue. Tell Stephen Bainbridge to put a Yes We Can button in his pipe and smoke it!