I can only assume that all SMU grads "think" like she does.
I went there and can certainly tell you that her "pro-prosecution" stance is not taught at SMU.
But the larger issue, in my mind, is why he would attribute that to SMU. He never shows any quotes from Judge Keller that would make one believe she claims she became pro-prosecution at SMU. Does he blame Harvard Law School every time Justice Scalia says something foolish?
Furthermore, why he asking for the dean of SMU to make a statement about this?
While I don’t have much hope that this will happen, I would like to see the dean of the law school, John B. Attanasio, explain whether it is appropriate for a judge sitting on a “Court of Criminal Appeals” to describe themselves as “pro-prosecution" and whether it tells its law students to declare that they are "pro-husband" if they plan on going to be family court judges.
Why would the Dean Attanasio care at all? Even assuming that SMU taught students to be pro-prosecution, which it doesn't, the current dean wasn't the dean when Judge Keller graduated from SMU.
Perhaps S. Cotus could better use his time arguing against elected judges in Texas. Keller ran on a platform of being pro-prosecution and won the election. Why someone would believe that she learned it at SMU simply boggles my mind.
