No need to apologize, or apology accepted -- whatever is better. To my mind, Earl's answer to my query was as pithy and clear as I am sometimes prolix and obscure. So no harm done.
Peace. H ----- Original Message ----- From: Earl Maltz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thursday, June 26, 2003 3:47 pm Subject: Re: Thomas in Lawrence v. Thomas during Confirmation > I took Howard Gillman's question to be whether there is any constitutional > problem with a justice saying one thing in his confirmation hearings, and > then taking a different position on the Court. The answer to that > question, in my mind, is simply no. (I guess there might conceivably be a > perjury issue, but that would not rise to constitutional > magnitude). Obviously, other people on the list have a different view > about what is interesting. > > In any event, I owe Howard Gillman an apology. I greatly respect his > scholarship, and my answer was disrespectful.
