Jon Chait nicely knocks down the specific hypocrisies of Charles Krauthammer's argument against Obama's recess appointment of Craig Becker, who served as counsel to the SEIU, to the National Labor Relations Board. But I think Chait misses an even broader idiocy in the process. Here's Krauthammer:
But the one that really I think is offensive in the group is … this guy [Craig] Becker [who] is essentially an agent, an advocate of the unions in what is — the NLRB — a quasi-judicial body. ... So it's like having a prosecutor on the jury. You really ought not do that.
Of course, all lawyers are advocates and agents of the people they represent. That's what lawyers do. And yet we find ourselves repeatedly appointing them not just to quasi-judicial bodies but to actual judicial bodies.
For instance, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, was a well-known appellate advocate for a variety of business interests as a private lawyer, yet I didn't hear Krauthammer complaining about the justice's past work as an agent during his confirmation process. Could it be that Krauthammer is merely trying to cloak his ideological biases in a procedural objection? Irrespective of any other problems with Becker, who is quite qualified for this post, if the only objection to his nomination is that he did a lawyer's work, that's very weak tea indeed.
-- Tim Fernholz
