On C-Span2, the Senators are still pontificating about the filibuster. I just caught a bit of Senator Mikulsi: "When Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton sat around at the Constitutional Convention, they wanted..."
BZZZZT!
Thomas Jefferson was not at the Constitutional Convention.
Milkulski assures us the Framers were devoted to checks and balances. I turned it off at that point, but she must have found a way to say they loved checking things so much they'd certainly love any additional checks the members of Congress might think up to make it even harder to get anything done. I did get a chance, however, to hear how seamlessly the Senator transitioned from talking about the Constitution to talking about "tradition."
But the Democrats don't normally base their arguments on "tradition," do they?
Remember the gay marriage issue?
Ah, let's just pay attention to the issue of the day, and make whatever the hell kinds of arguments work for that, and we'll think of a different style of argument to suit other occasions.
Isn't that the way a judge who's out of the mainstream would behave?
Of course not! The judges whom the Democrats fear and label "out of the mainstream" are the ones who are most devoted to a neutral methodology, who can't be counted upon to continue the makeshift, pragmatic case law that reaches the outcomes the Democrats like.
May 19, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
Well see now this is the kind of thing that gets the liberals riled at you and pigeon=holing you as "right of center" which I know irks you ;D
This filibuster nuclear option is right at the top of the news today, and it's starting to get on my nerves. I'm not sure I want to do away with it or not, I read that Robert Byrd did the same thing. So, I'm not sure this isn't something that hasn't been done before anyways.
Despite all of heated rhetoric in the Senate about the filibuster,
the subject now before the Senate is whether to give advice and consent to the nomination of Priscilla Owen.
I haven't seen any persuasive analysis by any lawyer or professor that Judge Owen's legal decisions in Texas were anything but reasonable, fully supported by Texas law, and well written.
Thus, all of the BS in the Senate is just that. The only question now is "who has the votes?"
Well, Art, I don't know if Ann will answer your question, but answer this one: The only way Griswold can be overruled is if a state legislature votes to outlaw contraception. What if your daughter were part of the majority in such a state who wanted contraception outlawed? Would you want her voice silenced and her vote ignored?
And don't say that your daughter would never have such beliefs. Sometimes the fruit falls pretty far from the tree, philosophically and politically. Just ask Mark Tushnet.
Well, Ms. Althouse, I will try not to irritate you, because you are lethal when aroused.
"neutral methodology" ... yeah, that's why everyone is so excited about these people. Come on.
The remarks against the Democrats should not erase the basic point that suddenly the Republicans are full of rhetoric that what they did a few years ago is so patently wrong.
As to the out of committe question, what about the single senator holds, including one that eventually was re-nominated by Bush?
As to "I have no objections to parental consent laws." This is somewhat besides the point, since the question was what the laws meant.
I'm for a compromise too, but who among us seriously thinks either side wants one? It doesn't help that Bush is not really someone the other side is willing to trust (for good reason).
Art: What would a supreme court justice have to change in order for you to say, "Gee, I'm sorry Bush appointed this justice?" For me it's Griswold. I want my daughter to have the option of birth control.
Sean: The only way Griswold can be overruled is if a state legislature votes to outlaw contraception. What if your daughter were part of the majority in such a state who wanted contraception outlawed? Would you want her voice silenced and her vote ignored?
Sean, don't you understand that courts exist to create and enforce wise policies when state legislatures reject progressive ideals?
Paul: I haven't studied the matter in depth, but I don't see the constitutional problem with the filibuster. The Senate has the power to make its own rules of procedure. They may be foolish or anti-democratic or obstructionist rules, but that doesn't make them unconstitutional. I see this as a purely political battle, with the invocations of the Constitution -- from both sides -- being quite bogus. I find the constitutional pieties expressed quite ridiculous.
Art: I support the rule of law, not particular outcomes. Not everything is constitutional law, and the absence of a right to birth control wouldn't cause birth control to be illegal.
Knemon: I'm not especially liberal or conservative. I'm an observer of human nature and I'm trying to point out hypocrisy and bogus rhetoric. I'd like to help people become smarter and more aware of the manipulation that is going on, even as I'm also a great believer in the rule of law. I am a law professor.
Kathleen: I have not studied the work of these judges. I have no valid opinion on the subject of their credentials.
Maxedoutmama: Thanks!
I seem to recall that the Founders hated faction more than they loved checks and balances. Apparently, they'd seen (or at least foreseen) just the sort of shenanigans that are going on now.
Seeing as the Republicans were the majority, odds are that if the committee had decided against them, they would not have succeeded in a floor vote.
Except, of course, that the Republicans then showed no deference to a President's selections, instead judging them based on ideological perceptions rather than generic fitness to the bench. Had Clinton's nominees been evaluated on the same standards that Republicans now ask to have applied to their nominees, we'd never be where we are right now.
On Owen: how naive does one have to be to believe that she has been selected for the Fifth Circuit for her ability to deliver "neutral" results, and not because it's believed she'll lean to the side of results that conservatives would favor?
Adam: I did not say Owen was nominated because of her tendency to reach "neutral results."
I was referring to Mr. Fagin's comment.
Adam: Thanks for the clarification. I hope my point about "neutral methodology" is clear. I do think certain types of methodology, will tend to produce results favored by conservatives and threaten established case law that liberals care a lot about. It is very hard to attack these judges, because they seem to be acting in an appropriate, impressive manner. But you can see where the results will be and you don't like them. Then how do you attack that person?
it sure is funny seeing all those Democrats bloviating about the unsuitability for Federal appellate court service of a black, single mother who went to law school at night and got herself elected to the California Supreme Court.
Is this Queen for a Day or a lifetime judicial appointment? If I find someone who went to law school in the midnight-6am shift while working three jobs with two broken feet and astigatism, can we nominate her too?
It's awfully funny to see conservatives start touting biography instead of discussing the issues.
Fair enough on the "who's a conservative", but I thought we all believed that qualifications for appellate courts went beyond looking at someone's resume.
If that weren't the case, there's no excuse for the denial of majority support to 60+ Clinton nominees who never left committee. (And even so, it was nonsense.)
No one questions whether these nominees have sufficient experience. The question is whether their judicial reasoning will be sound.
In all honesty, were it not for 1995-2000, I don't think I'd have a real problem with any of them save Brown, who really do believe wants to move the law well past precedent in areas which I care about.
But for six years, a Democratic president was denied the right to have his nominees acted upon by a flurry of nonsensical maneuvers, and if 1-2 Republicans can block a nominee, why not 40+ Dems?
I'd like to return to a system where provocative thinkers from across the spectrum are able to serve on the federal bench, but I'll be damned if that's only going to have on one side.
Post a Comment