Nevertheless, I bear you no ill will. The point of the rule of law is not whether a decision is good or bad, but whether it complies with the law as written.  In Dowdy, as in the other cases I have examined from the Markey collection, I focused on the decisionmaking process.  That process led Judge Markey to ignore precedent going back to 1897.  One effect of this process was, temporarily until corrected by the Supreme Court, to make things less safe (if it is true that knowing where sex offenders are is helpful to law enforcement).  And, the Supreme Court pointed out that the amendments to SORA did not affect the case, nor do they improve things much, if at all, beyond the Supreme Court's opinion.

Even more troubling is an email sent today by Judge Markey, in which she states:  "During this campaign, I've often said I am a Rule of Law judge. And it's true. But I'm also a real world judge who believes that a little common sense goes a long way." (Emphasis added).  This is precisely the problem -- applying a judge's "common sense" is just code for empathy, as was the case in Progressive Insurance Company v Smith, about which I wrote here.

There's no question that it's more difficult to discern the opinion record of circuit judge, but is that the only reason you are so anti-O'Brien?  Or are there some other grounds you and others have not disclosed?  If there are other reasons, I would like to hear them.

Until then, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.  As always, I respect your arguments, your passion, and your hard work.  If Judge Markey is nominated, I will certainly support her in the general election, but I think that her record shows she is not the best choice we have and would be an uncertain vote in future cases in which the rule of law is at issue.