The Eagle editorial board shares the view of Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., on U.S. Supreme Court nominations — that presidential elections matter, and that as long as a president’s nominees are highly qualified and don’t have some clear problem, they should be confirmed. That’s why the editorial board supported Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito and why, absent some new revelation, it supports nominee Sonia Sotomayor. As Graham noted during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Monday, the arguing over judicial nominations is mostly “about liberal and conservative politics” — not about qualifications and judicial record, which in Sotomayor’s case are both stellar. But it’s worth noting that this view was not shared by President Obama, who voted against Roberts and Alito when he was a U.S. senator.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
42 Comments
Maybe Graham’s one of the rubber stamp congress coalition?
The “soda mare” – Second Amendment not a fundamental right.
Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor ruled in January 2009 that states do not have to obey the Second Amendment. In Maloney v. Cuomo, Sotomayor signed an opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that said the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments.
The opinion said that the Second Amendment only restricted the federal government from infringing on an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. As justification for this position, the opinion cited the 1886 Supreme Court case of Presser v. Illinois. Quoting Presser, the court said, “it is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the
national government, and not upon that of the state.”
The Plan of the Left, Lies, Liars and Lice
Bloatus Porkulus View
Stimulus – *Paul Krugman of The New York Times leads the pack calling for yet another “stimulus.” He claims the $787-billion package was “too small.”
reality:
The Porkulus spending bill – After months of bragging about 150,000 jobs “saved or created,” the GAO admits that the states have done almost nothing with their portion of the funds to do anything but keep bureaucrats employed. Jobs not saved last week – 540000.
Global Warmers – Henny Penny Spokesman
Global warming demi-god James Hansen of NASA castigates the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade energy tax as not going far enough despite its $9.4-trillion costs. He labels it “counterfeit” not because it does too much, but too little in his view.
reality:
Despite CO2 levels rising according to the ‘tax and spend’ Democraps – global temperatures are falling, the arctic ice cap is the same as it was in the 1970s and tree ring growth for the 20th century show no warming trends at all.
Health Scare Bill:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gargantuan health care bill founders a bit after 40 Blue Dog Democrats sign a letter to slow down on Health Care. Even so, the Bella Lagosi Pelosi, has tax specialists trying to design a trillion-dollar tax hike to steal from the empty pockets of American taxpayers.
reality:
A new letter signed by 42 Blue Dog Democrats in the House asks their leadership to slow down on health care legislation.
Pelosi’s denial: I did not have seckual relationship with that CIA agent.
Democratic war on spies from the CIA. Panetta and Director of National Intelligence Adm. Dennis Blair are in a “polar struggle”, the kind of constant infighting that thwarts our ability to pursue, gather and apply the best intelligence we can, the
information we need to survive the war we are in.
reality:
The CIA has once again become a laughing stock around the world and foreign governments no longer trust the CIA to keep a secret.
But it’s worth noting that this view was not shared by President Obama, who voted against Roberts and Alito when he was a U.S. senator.
—————————————-
Senate vote of 78-22 Roberts
Senate vote of 58-42 Alito
He did however vote to give rosa parks a stamp….
Yes, I think Senator Graham has the correct view on Supreme court nominations.
If Sonia Sotomayor presides as President Obama surely must think (hope) she will, the balance of the court will remain the same.
Of course we all know there have been surprises and disappointments. Only time will tell. She certainly is well qualified for the job she is nominated to fill.
The liberals, sticking their core hateful strategy of attacking ordinary people instead of articulating a coherent defense of their illogical ideology, have embarked on a course to defame the man who’s lawsuit is a black eye on Sotomayor’s jurisprudence.
WASHINGTON — Supporters of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor are quietly targeting the Connecticut firefighter who’s at the center of Sotomayor’s most controversial ruling.
Frank Ricci is the “Joe the Plumber” of the Sotomayor confirmation hearings.
However, Sotomayor herself calls the attacks ‘reprehensible’.
I also share Senator Graham’s views. Apparently, so does President Obama, now that he is not a Senator. Same Oh, Same Oh. Oh Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. “Confirm Sontamayer in spite of Senator Obama’S PARTISANSHIP”.
But it’s worth noting that this view was not shared by President Obama, who voted against Roberts and Alito when he was a U.S. senator.
—-
Until, of course, Senator Obama became President Obama, when suddenly qualifications, and not ideology, mattered.
Frankly, it is a view that was widely shared until fairly recently. SCOTUS nominees were largely non-political, until the Democrats decided to demand litmus tests and make ideology an issue. As a result we saw the ugly ideological fights over the nominations of Thomas, Roberts, and Alito.
The results are reflected in the votes on Alito and Roberts noted in the 1:05 post above.
By contrast, Justice Ginsburg, the most liberal justice on the Court and thus one conservative Republicans might be expected to fight tooth and nail on ideological grounds (nominated by Pres. Clinton, during an era notable for its ideological divisions – remember the “vast rightwing conspiracy?”) was affirmed without that kind of nasty ideological battle.
Thus the ideological chickens created by the Democrats are coming home to roost in the often silly posturing some Republicans are making over Sotomayer.
Oh – the vote on Ginsburg? 97-3.
The Democrats, in other words, created this ideological battle over SCOTUS appointments that they now decry. And President Obama, as Senator, fully endorsed the kind of ideological point-scoring he how condemns.
Ironic, isn’t it?
In theory, Yes.
But it seems to me that Graham is assuming an informed electorate that recognizes the implications of its vote.
Right now we have popularity contests.
We part company once again, GMC.
I am glad that Dems refused to seat Robert Bork who defended Nixon in the Watergate hearings.
We are all better off because of it.
As for playing politics with nominations, didn’t the RepubliCONs themselves shoot down Harriet Mieres nomination?
Why, yes, they did.
It’s a real tragedy that Scalia and Thomas weren’t filibustered.
If they had been, our great nation might have been spared eight years of “worst president ever.”
Thanks, Obama: Cap-and Trade will be $4300 per family energy tax
Numbers floating around measuring the costs of cap and trade. For instance, a study by MIT professor John Reilly shows a carbon cap and trade would cost the average American household $3,900 a year. $800 of that figure comes from, according to Reilly, “the cost to the economy [that] involves all those actions people have to take to reduce their
use of fossil fuels or find ways to use them without releasing [Green House Gases].”
But the direct tax on household energy use is just the beginning. The energy tax also hits producers of goods and services.
O’BAMA
WORST
PRESIDENT
EVER
Actually Once again, Capn doesn’t know what he is talking about. After the votes were counted 12 months later, Gore still lost.
The media reported the results of the study during the week after November 12, 2001. The results of the study showed that had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Gore team been completed, Bush would still have been the winner of the election.
Wikipedia.
CraponAmerica – If they had been, our great nation might have been spared eight years of “worst president ever.”
————————-
You are assuming O’bama WPE is going to have a second term?
ha.
laughable.
The media reported the results of the study during the week after November 12, 2001. The results of the study showed that had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Gore team been completed, Bush would still have been the winner of the election.
Wikipedia.
*****
True enough. But the recount wouldn’t have been conducted the way Al Gore wanted.
It would have been conducted the way Florida law proscribed: votes would have been recounted by looking at the clear intent of the voter.
So those thousands of “over-votes” that were rejected by machine counts simply because the voter wrote in under “write in candidate” Al Gore’s name AND punched a hole for him?
They would have been counted and Gore would have won by more than a thousand votes.
*****
That information was also in the consortium study, but the MSM media buried it. The Eagle for example cut the story so readers never saw it.
Nothing to see here. Move along . . .
Biased 1
I asked you nicely to please stop calling me that.
So please stop calling me that.
Gore lost his home state of Tennessee in the 2000 election.
The intent of the voter is determined by a properly filled out ballot as defined by law.
There is no supreme court ruling that could have ruled in favor of Gore without re-writing the law.
That’s why the editorial board supported Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito and why, absent some new revelation, it supports nominee Sonia Sotomayor.
Clearly, that point of view allows the Editorial Board to avoid using any portion of its brain.
Confirmation hearing do sometimes end up caught in politics, but judges who are confirmed for life deserve more exacting scrutiny. Of course, trying to grasp the nuances of constitutional law isn’t for everyone; hence, most of those who opposed Robert Bork probably did not grasp what a dangerous extremist he was (or, for that matter, what a dangerous extremist Rehnquist was).
Supreme Court nominees can–and should–get a free pass for questionable decisions rendered on a lower court in a good faith attempt to adhere to precedent. But the notion that simply having a good resume is enough is startlingly vapid, whether the subject in question is Samuel Alito or Sonia Sotomayor.
Of course, it actually take research and some understanding of constitutional principles to mount worthwhile questions, but the fact is that judges–Supreme or lower–often issue disingenuous missives that distort well-established doctrines. Roberts and Alito are worrisome and that regard, and the late Chief Justice raised it to a high art.
I am not opposing Judge Sotomayor (though I have concerns which I hope will addressed in the hearings). I just felt it necessary to strenously object to this incredibly foolish idea that only paper qualifications matter for the nation’s highest court.
By that standard, absent the torture memo scandal, John Yoo would be a flawless appointee.
GMC70,
You wrote,
“Frankly, it is a view that was widely shared until fairly recently. SCOTUS nominees were largely non-political, until the Democrats decided to demand litmus tests and make ideology an issue.”
You also wrote,
“The Democrats, in other words, created this ideological battle over SCOTUS appointments that they now decry.”
Oh, really? Ever heard of Associate Justice Abe Fortas? His 1968 nomination by President Johnson for Chief Justice was defeated by a Republican-led filibuster, spearheaded by Senator Robert Griffin (R-MI).
What follows is John Dean’s takedown of Orrin Hatch’s false account of the filibuster as “bipartisan.” It was not: Republicans managed to kill the nomination.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050506.html
I know the version of SCOTUS confirmation history you want to push, GMC70, only starts in 1987, and has Democrats as perpetrators and Republicans as victims. But if one wants to decry the way in which the SCOTUS confirmation process has become a partisan scorched earth, the starting point is in 1968, and the blame lies with Senate Republicans.
And, like the Captain, I don’t for one second apologize for the filibuster of the Bork nomination. “Originalism” is a hermeneutical fantasy and, as we’ve seen, is every bit the vehicle of wishful thinking and retroactive interpretation that its advocates claim to reject. As the Roberts Court is demonstrating yet again, where you stand depends on where you sit.
RFL,
You wrote,
“The intent of the voter is determined by a properly filled out ballot as defined by law.
There is no supreme court ruling that could have ruled in favor of Gore without re-writing the law.”
I’ll be charitable, since I think you’re ignorant rather than disingenuous, but you’re flat wrong.
Florida statute mandates that no vote “shall be declared invalid or void if there is a clear indication of the intent of the vote.” The standard is “clear intent.” And in the case of overvotes, where a voter checks a box AND writes in a name, there’s a clear intent. “Properly filled out” is your interpretation, but not the State of Florida’s.
Here is Lance deHaven-Smith, a professor at Florida State University, who published his findings that Gore won on overvotes in “The Battle for Florida” (University Press of Florida, 2005):
“(Interviewer): Throughout the book, you repeat that Florida’s election law—especially the rule that no vote “shall be declared invalid or void if there is a clear indication of the intent of the vote”—is in fact much more straightforward than was made out during the controversy. So then, who do you fault the most for making it all seem so murky?
LdHS: I would say [then-Secretary of State] Katherine Harris in terms of murky—in terms of what the law intended and what it meant. There was a contradiction in the law. What it said was you have to get the recount done within a very short time, and it just wasn’t possible. But that’s not uncommon. You just have to interpret it with common sense.
Part of what was going on was the stakes were really high; the people involved were very inexperienced; Harris didn’t know [Attorney General Bob] Butterworth; they were not cordial. But if it had been a group of leaders who had been around for a while, they would have sat down and easily said, “Well, here’s a way to resolve this problem.” But that wasn’t the aim of the people involved. The aim was from the beginning to stop the recount.
Yet if you looked at the law and if you looked at the case law, what Florida had consistently said was if you can count the votes, you must count the votes. You cannot penalize the voters for mistakes that the administrators make or that the law may make. You really have to give the voters the advantage.”
http://www.rinr.fsu.edu/winter2005/features/battlefield.html
Simple as that: you’re wrong. And the Supreme Court handed the Presidency to the candidate who got fewer votes in Florida, but whose political allies managed to stop all the votes from being counted, in violation of Florida statute.
In a per curiam decision, the Court in Bush v. Gore ruled that the Florida Supreme Court’s method for recounting ballots was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also ruled that no alternative method could be established within the time limits set by the State of Florida. Three concurring justices also asserted that the Florida Supreme Court had violated Article II, § 1, cl. 2 of the Constitution, by misinterpreting Florida election law that had been enacted by the Florida Legislature.
Democrats need to question the nominee more aggressively. We need to be sure that she is willing to be an activist in helping make a more than 200 year old document more relevant in modern times.
“CraponAmerica” [biased1] [as in bigot?]
the bigot’s definition of what CONS hope to do to our Country….
no sarcasm intended :-)
I agree with Jay’s overall sentiment, i.e., that it is disingenuous and wrong to use originalist excuses like the “the Framer’s intent” and “follow the text” to avoid dealing fairly and constitutionally with modern-day issues, and ignoring obvious principles and parallels to deny or disparage rights to persons in the modern age.
Political hacks would have us believe this is a modern issue; in fact, it goes back to the earliest days of the Republic and, significantly, it has frequently found its correct expression by the Supreme Court back in times where appalling injustices were otherwise tolerated.
Those idiots who complain about the non-existent offense of “judicial activism” should ponder the words of Justice Louis Brandeis (some emphasis added by myself):
______________________________________________
“We must never forget,” said Mr. Chief Justice Marshall in 17 U. S. 407, “that it is a constitution we are expounding.” Since then, this Court has repeatedly sustained the exercise of power by Congress, under various clauses of that instrument, over objects of which the Fathers could not have dreamed. See Pensacola Telegraph Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 96 U. S. 1, 96 U. S. 9; Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. North Dakota, 250 U. S. 135; Dakota Central Telephone Co. v. South Dakota, 250 U. S. 163; Brooks v. United States, 267 U. S. 432. We have likewise held that general limitations on the powers of Government, like those embodied in the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, do not forbid the United States or the States from meeting modern conditions by regulations which, “a century ago, or even half a century ago, probably would have been rejected as arbitrary and oppressive.” Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U. S. 365, 272 U. S. 387; Buck v. Bell, 274 U. S. 200. Clauses guaranteeing to the individual protection against specific abuses of power must have a similar capacity of adaptation to a changing world. It was with reference to such a clause that this Court said, in Weems v. United States,@ 217 U. S. 349, 217 U. S. 373:
“Legislation, both statutory and constitutional, is enacted, it is true, from an experience of evils, but its general language should not, therefore, be necessarily confined to the form that evil had theretofore taken. Time works changes, brings into existence new conditions.
and purposes. Therefore, a principle, to be vital, must be capable of wider application than the mischief which gave it birth. This is peculiarly true of constitutions. They are not ephemeral enactments, designed to meet passing occasions. They are, to use the words of Chief Justice Marshall ‘designed to approach immortality as nearly as human institutions can approach it.’ The future is their care, and provision for events of good and bad tendencies of which no prophecy can be made. In the application of a constitution, therefore, our contemplation cannot be only of what has been, but of what may be. Under any other rule, a constitution would indeed be as easy of application as it would be deficient in efficacy and power. Its general principles would have little value, and be converted by precedent into impotent and lifeless formulas. Rights declared in words might be lost in reality.”
When the Fourth and Fifth Amendments were adopted, “the form that evil had theretofore taken” had been necessarily simple. Force and violence were then the only means known to man by which a Government could directly effect self-incrimination. It could compel the individual to testify — a compulsion effected, if need be, by torture. It could secure possession of his papers and other articles incident to his private life — a seizure effected, if need be, by breaking and entry. Protection against such invasion of “the sanctities of a man’s home and the privacies of life” was provided in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments by specific language. Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 630. But “time works changes, brings into existence new conditions and purposes.” Subtler and more far-reaching means of invading privacy have become available to the Government. Discovery and invention have made it possible for the Government, by means far more effective than stretching upon the rack, to obtain disclosure in court of what is whispered in the closet.
Moreover, “in the application of a constitution, our contemplation cannot be only of what has, been but of what may be.” The progress of science in furnishing the Government with means of espionage is not likely to stop with wiretapping. Ways may someday be developed by which the Government, without removing papers from secret drawers, can reproduce them in court, and by which it will be enabled to expose to a jury the most intimate occurrences of the home. Advances in the psychic and related sciences may bring means of exploring unexpressed beliefs, thoughts and emotions. “That places the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer” was said by James Otis of much lesser intrusions than these. [Footnote 1] To Lord Camden, a far slighter intrusion seemed “subversive of all the comforts of society.” [Footnote 2] Can it be that the Constitution affords no protection against such invasions of individual security?
http://supreme.justia.com/us/277/438/case.html
Justice Brandeis goes on to note the seminal of Boyd v. United States (1886), “a case that will be remembered as long as civil liberty lives in the United States.”
supreme.justia.com/us/116/616/case.html
The pretense that judges merely need to “look at text” ignores the fact that easy cases rarely make it to the Supreme Court in the first place, and rarely, if ever, decided by a robotic reading of Constitutional provisions and statute
In a per curiam decision, the Court in Bush v. Gore ruled that the Florida Supreme Court’s method for recounting ballots was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also ruled that no alternative method could be established within the time limits set by the State of Florida. Three concurring justices also asserted that the Florida Supreme Court had violated Article II, § 1, cl. 2 of the Constitution, by misinterpreting Florida election law that had been enacted by the Florida Legislature.
This, of course, was after the previous (unanimous) decision, that mandated they had to obey the Florida statute, which is all they did.
It was a sucker punch, and everyone with a functioning brain and a conscience knows it.
P.S. It also provides an outrageous example of results-oriented conservative judges perverting the law to achieve the desired end (yes, more liberal/libertarian judges do it too, but conservative make it habit, but they know their fans will ignore the semantic contradiction of “activism”).
It was a sucker punch, and everyone with a functioning brain and a conscience knows it.
Except that the action requested by Gore was in violation of Florida Election law, which the Florida Supreme Court ignored and got caught by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Cons, for State Rights, except when they aren’t. The State S.C. should’ve settled the issue.
If the con S.C. considered the Franken issue worthy, they’d have thrown Coleman into the Senate.
Good thing Coleman bowed out.
P.S. It also provides an outrageous example of results-oriented conservative judges perverting the law to achieve the desired end (yes, more liberal/libertarian judges do it too, but conservative make it habit, but they know their fans will ignore the semantic contradiction of “activism”).
Translation:
Liberal rulings construed as results-oriented = GOOD!
Conservative rulings, construed as results-oriented = BAD!
THAT is the level of analysis you offer, Rage? That’s it?
Remember – as noted above: It is a Constitution we are expounding. It is fixed law. Constitutions by their nature are conservative documents – not in the political sense that we often misapply, but in the literal sense: they limit governments to what is authorized. THAT IS WHAT CONSTITUTIONS ARE. A constitutional interpretation not at base grounded in the text of the document as understood by those who adopted it is not a constitution at all; it is the whim of those high priests who sit on the SCOTUS.
Such an interpretation philosophy will not answer every question, of course, and the problem as to how to apply constitutional principles in the text to the modern world will cause disagreement. And yes, these are close cases, where there often is no clear “right” answer.
But to cut constitutional interpretation loose from the Constitution is to not have a constitution at all. Be careful what you wish for; at its basic, the constitution is a limitation on gov’t. Do we really want to loose gov’t from the limits the founders imposed on it (such as they still exist, to be frank)? You do understand the recent history of gov’ts who see themselves as unconstrained by limitations? It ain’t pretty.
And before we go further in this, can we finally get a definition of “activism” in judging (a real issue, IMHO) that amounts to more than “decisions I disagree with?” There is such a thing. But what is often railed against as activism isn’t, and what is in fact quite activist is not seen as same.
And finally, Rage, can you please simply recognize that reasonable people will not always agree with you? If so, we can avoid ridiculous – and patently false – statements like this one: It [Bush v. Gore] was a sucker punch, and everyone with a functioning brain and a conscience knows it. In fact, at least 5 reasonable people do (or did) disagree with you.
If we can recognize that, at least, we can begin to understand each other and interact as adults rather than simply posting talking points.
GMC, your post at 9:21 assumes that there is any value to the Constitution.
It’s very clear the acts of this current administration indicate there is no need or desire for any Constitution, except for when it suits their purposes. ‘We’ have now evolved into 21st Century man and a document that is over 200 years old has outlived its usefulness.
I’m reminded of something written long ago, which may explain why the American people have allowed the value of the Constitution to be destroyed. Someone once wrote:
“…mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”
And Glenn Beck in “Common Sense” provided another reason for apathy, to paraphrase: Americans are more concerned with partisan politics, that is, supporting one party over another, then in doing the right thing and standing up for the rights of all. And we have allowed both parties to divide us and destract us from protecting our Freedom, baited by whatever ‘gift’ one party offers to its supporters, which is given in exchange to keep such party in power.
Whatever the reasons, it’s clear the Constitution has been and is still being contorted and ignored in such a manner, that’s it’s value is diminished every day. And we all are allowing this to happen.
I suppose the US Constitution may still be of some value, in the distant future.
One thousand or more years after the fall of America, a future Government somewhere on Earth may review the forms of Government from history, and learn from past mistakes. Rome and America will serve as examples for the future.
Imagine in the year 3779, a group of people sit down and draft a Constitution, correcting and clarifying the original American document, and avoiding many of the problems we face today. An ideal world requiring a miracle perhaps, but then that miracle almost happened in 18th Century.
Not too many changes would be required. Eliminating or clarifying a few clauses would have made a world of difference.
The US Constitution was a beautiful document. May it RIP. And may it’s content be preserved for the benefit of generations of Freedom loving people in the distant future.
GMC hit it on the head (for BOTH parties) with:
“Constitutions by their nature are conservative documents – not in the political sense that we often misapply, but in the literal sense: they limit governments to what is authorized.”
_______________________
What never ceases to amaze me is the willingness of both parties to forever bless all 3 branches with ever expanding powers, then complain endlessly when their party loses power and the other party picks up those newly created reins and leads the team in a different direction, all in the name of jr high logic consisting of “well THEY did it!”. Then wonder out loud how the nation became so divisive. Did anyone believe Obama would do anything, but what he did with the open checkbook Bush left him with TARP/Omnibus?? Does anyone believe the next GOP Pres won’t have 50 czars now that Obama’s used that method to avoid advise & consent? One side screamed at the Cheney/Halliburton connection, but says nothing of the GE/Gore/Obama monopoly being created. Nor the Goldman Sachs connections with BOTH admins as they continue to milk the system. When’s the last time either party passed legislation limiting the authority of any branch of govt, let alone the authority of the mini-fiefdoms of the unelected agencies who’ve been granted the powers of judge/jury & executioner outside of any other oversight (EPA, SEC, FCC, FDA, etc)? When’s the last time the congressional committee structure’s been challenged to limit their ability to kill/bury bills, access to campaign donors due to their committee role, etc??
BJ wrote:
“We need to be sure that she is willing to be an activist in helping make a more than 200 year old document more relevant in modern times.”
_____________-
If the COTUS is just a piece of paper written by dead white guys over 200 yrs ago…why don’t you explain why the 2 methods for amending it under Article V, and the 3rd way via SCOTUS fiat isn’t enough for you?
And yes, I couldn’t agree more….Dems should definitely come out of the closet and demand that judges be activists…it goes over so well with the general population.
Translation:
Liberal rulings construed as results-oriented = GOOD!
Conservative rulings, construed as results-oriented = BAD!
THAT is the level of analysis you offer, Rage? That’s it?
As nothing I said could be sanely construed to even imply such a position, this is unworthy of response. You are disingenuous as ever, counselor.
The rest of your strawman rant follows the same trajectory, and is similarly unworthy of response.
Finally, to address your only salient point, reasonable people can disagree as to disputed facts, not undisputed ones. The first unanimous decision by the Supremes in fact mandated that the Florida Supreme look to the statute and not invent new standards. The Florida Supreme Court in fact applied the only statutory standard it had available to it–”the clear intent of the voter.” As it was it had to borrow that from a statute concerning spoiled ballots (actually quite relevant), but the Supreme Court did not criticize them for that.
The majority’s remarkable objection was posted by Regular above–they screwed up by doing exactly what they told to do by the Supreme Court.
One can perhaps split hairs on the semantic distinction of “sucker punch,” but if the shoe fits, put it in your mouth.
What happens is that highly qualified, experienced nominees put forward by Republican presidents and savaged, ripped apart, tortured, stalled, and voted against by Democrats including Barack Obama when he was a Senator; highly qualified, experienced nominees but forward by Democrats are probed, discussed, examined and eventually supported by Republicans. Sotomayor will probably get a majority of Republican votes because they realize that, despite philosophical differences, she has the qualifications to serve. Democrats do not extend the same courtesy to nominees from Republican presidents.
As nothing I said could be sanely construed to even imply such a position, this is unworthy of response. You are disingenuous as ever, counselor.
The rest of your strawman rant follows the same trajectory, and is similarly unworthy of response.
Translation: You kicked my ass, and I don’t have a clue how to respond.
Actually, my “translation,” if highly simplified, captured precisely what you said; you are simply too disingenuous – or oblivious – to recognize it.
And that’s too bad. If you entered this conversation with any genuine intellectual honesty, you’d be a worthy opponent. As it is, you wrap up your declarations of your opinion as “facts” and proceed to denigrate anyone who dares to agree with you.
In other words, fairly typical for the left.
Sigh. . .I feel like I’m arguing with a six-year-old.
The statement that you dishonestly latched onto (ignoring the substance of what I actually said, which was laid out better than I could do by the great Justice Brandeis) simply pointed out that those who loudly complain about “activist judges” tend to support judges are the most text-mangling, preceding-distorting result-oriented jurists–so long as the result agrees with the polisocial views.
I attempted to be fair, and pointed out that departing from a rational reading of text and precedent is not limited to the hard right–but you don’t see an huge political movement oversimplifying and denigrating conservative “activists.”
You then pounced on this statement and misrepresented it as something anyone who can read could see was simply not said.
Like I said upthread, disingenuous, as usual.
Rage’s attempt to be fair in dicussion with GMc by using the following words or phrases
disingenuous
strawman rant
unworthy of response
dishonestly latched
(chortles)
. . . simply pointed out that those who loudly complain about “activist judges” tend to support judges are the most text-mangling, preceding-distorting result-oriented jurists–so long as the result agrees with the polisocial views.
And I pointed out, correctly, that the idea that conservatives (who you are clearly referring to) are the most “text-mangling” etc. is pure opinion – and one, IMHO, unsupportable by any objective facts.
And it is in fact you who construes anyone who dares to disagree with you as “disingenuous” or lacking a “functioning brain.”
Now who’s the six year old?