After nearly 14 years on the appellate court, she has proved to be such an impressive match for her conservative colleagues that it appears that, of all the current Supreme Court candidates, her temperament and moderate, incremental liberalism most resemble Ginsburg's. "She is very careful, she is respectful of precedent, she is a craftsperson, and she is fairly incremental in her approach," says Geoffrey Stone of the University of Chicago and the author of a book on the suppression of speech during war. "I think she does believe that the role of judges, in part, is to ensure that the oppressed and the disenfranchised and dissenters get a fair shake in the political system, which would be a significant part of the moderate liberal element of Diane. But she's certainly not in any way result-oriented."Don't worry, conservatives!
२१ मे, २००९
Jeffrey Rosen loves Diane Wood.
After what he said about Sotomayer, this is ardent admiration:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१४ टिप्पण्या:
Glad to hear that she is a craft person with an incremental approach. We conservatives will not jump like scalded frogs, but we will still be cooked to death by crafty incrementalism. Thanks for the good news.
A Sotomeyer would probably be more unpredictable and less effective in putting forward the liberal position. Woods would be more effective, but also smarter and more cautious. But Woods thinks it is okay to put forward policy in judicial decisions. Hmmm.
Liberal or conservative is not the issue, I just want judges who do not try to make law.
"I think she does believe that the role of judges, in part, is to ensure that the oppressed and the disenfranchised and dissenters get a fair shake in the political system, which would be a significant part of the moderate liberal element of Diane. But she's certainly not in any way result-oriented."
How can you "not in any way be results oriented" but at the same time "ensure that the oppressed and the disenfranchised and dissenters get a fair shake in the political system" How did such a non sequitur get past an editor?
I can't figure out which it is. Is it that liberals, having grown up cocooned completely away from dissent or critical thought, are really this stupid incapable of logical thought. Or is it that they know perfectly well how illogical their writing is but assume everyone else is stupid.
We conservatives will not jump like scalded frogs, but we will still be cooked to death by crafty incrementalism.
'Incrementalism' jumped out at me, too. The acceptance of incremental change through the high court oversteps the main issue: Judges should interpret Constitutionality of policy, rather than dictating that policy.
"...incremental liberalism..."
Otherwise known as the slow strangulation of liberty.
"and moderate, incremental liberalism most resemble Ginsburg's"
Ginsburg is a moderate, incremental liberal? What?
I love the chilling euphemism "incremental liberalism". ricpic's definition is spot-on.
There's that word temperament again, right up there at the beginning. It's a word dog handlers use, especially important for breeds known for aggressiveness or for flightiness, dobermans particularly, and for the nervous little breeds.
All the quotes in this article are from actual named people.
Wood will be better for both conservatives and liberals than Souter.
And she's a good writer.
What does she think of the second amendment? What does she think of McCain/Feingold?
That is all you need to know to decide if she is incompetent or not.
What does she think of the second amendment? What does she think of McCain/Feingold?
That is all you need to know to decide if she is incompetent or not.
Today, let the word go forth:
Give us Wood!
So the poor and disenfranchised get "more equal protection" under the law than those who aren't.
Oh that's fair.
I'd prefer a judge without such prejudice.
LOL EDH.
If she doesn't get this gig, maybe MSNBC can give her a talking head legal commentator show in the morning time slot, and call it
MORNING WOOD
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा