Judge JoAnne Kloppenburg... has picked Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor. Her rival, Justice Rebecca Bradley, finds this highly objectionable. These two justices, she accuses, “espouse a judicial philosophy that believes the Constitution is a living, breathing document, that it should change to reflect changing social and political conditions.”The question is not who's correct about how to interpret the Constitution. We're having an election. The people get to vote on how they think the Constitution (and all the other law) should be interpreted. Kloppenburg and Bradley have clearly stated what you need to know, Wisconsin voters. Pick!
But here is what Kloppenburg actually says about Ginsburg and Sotomayor: “They seem to share my view of the Constitution as protecting individual rights and promoting a more fair and equal society.”
Does Bradley disagree that the Constitution calls for protecting individual rights and promoting equality? “There are individual rights that are protected under the Constitution,” Bradley replies. “But when she talks about a more equal society, that’s a very subjective statement,” one whose meaning can vary from judge to judge.
Bradley named Antonin Scalia, before his recent death, as the U.S. Supreme Court justice she most admires, along with Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. “These three justices have the judicial philosophy I follow,” she says, she says, including their embrace of originalism: the notion that the Constitution must be interpreted in light of the Founding Fathers’ original intent. She notes that Scalia exhibited qualities that surprised others, such as being “protective of the rights of criminal defendants.”
२० मार्च, २०१६
"It’s a question every candidate for state Supreme Court is asked: Which U.S. Supreme Court justices do you most admire?"
Writes the left/liberal Bill Lueders at the end of his Isthmus piece "Battle for the [Wisconsin Supreme] court/Bradley v. Kloppenburg is a classic contest between two visions of the role of law":
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२५ टिप्पण्या:
don't confuse protecting rights with inventing new rights.
Ginsburg and Sotomayor don't believe in protecting gun rights or economic rights. They believe in protecting abortion and gay marriage. They believe the government can regulate what the New York Times writes because it is a corporation and corporations don't have constitutional rights. They don't believe people should be able to protest outside an abortion clinic.
Kennedy is the closest thing to a libertarian on the court. He believes in gun rights, right of free speech for all, right of adult sexual freedom, right of abortion and to protests against abortion, and right to gay marriage. He is against affirmative action discrimination and is against the government power to make people buy stuff.
He makes both progressives and conservatives unhappy.
States are allowed to legislate a lot more than the Feds, so the constitution has a different standing. It's allowed to have bad ideas.
The US constitution on the other hand can be gotten at from where it came from and the reasons for it.
What a great time in history this is, to push back against the NYU/Brennan Center/Justice O'Connor advocacy about state supreme court elections.
If you believe NYU/Brennan Ctr./O'Connor, the state supreme court elections are too partisan and unruly. Unlike, uh, our august procedures and traditions in the federal judiciary and at the U.S. Supreme Court.
LMFAO.
http://www.justiceatstake.org/state/state_resources/competitive-elections-v-appointment-resources/
I pick the one who's method of interpretation doesn't depend on how they feel that day.
“They seem to share my view of the Constitution as protecting individual rights and promoting a more fair and equal society.” To treat SSM and abortion as "individual" rights itself deviates from an original understanding of individual rights, nor do they involve "individual" activity. Not that it matters, of course. Whatever Progs consider fair and equal at one time or another will be construed as enhancing "individual rights."
Liberal Supreme Court Justices think the Constitution is like fire: A wonderful servant but a terrible master.
"promoting equality?"
This is the open door to all sorts of bad ideas.
Lawyers are awful. Ugh. We should not be hanging on every politically motivated 5-4 decision. It isn't what is in the constitution that is important, it is what isn't there and what a bunch of people who aren't as smart as they think they can make up.
Abortion is mentioned twice in the constitution, very specifically. The 9th amendment and the 10th amendment. Ditto marriage. It was time long ago for the Supreme Court to go back to law and get out of the legislative arena.
Supreme Court don't mean Shit to a Pimp.
Supreme Court says I can't have an Uzi? Guess what? I got me an Uzi.
Supreme Court says I can't Shiv a Sucker? Well, I'll shiv whoever needs shivving, bitches.
Supreme Court says I can't turn out Hos on the Street to make me my Paper? I'll put them Bitches out, and they'll suck cock twelve hours straight to keep me Rolling Big. And I'll straighten out those that start the Wrong Kind of Thinking: I don't need the Supreme Court to tell me when a Bitch gets out of line.
All you lawyers; keep on doing that Lawyer Thing -- it don't matter to me none.Meanwhile, I'll be having your Daughter moaning and calling me Big Daddy P in no time. You screw me, your Daughter gets screwed: you Feel Me?
Now go back to your Pretend World of Big Thoughts: I'll be hanging out here, laying down the Street Law with the Back of My Hand.
I am Laslo.
Why is it that the commentators to this politically middle-of-the-road blog think that Bradley's philosophy is correct by a margin of more than 15 to 1?
1. They are more likely to cheat and vote multiple times.
2. They want to please Ann and (correctly) cast the vote they think she would cast.
3. They want to please Ann and (wrongly) cast the vote they think she would cast.
4. They are less likely to attend church this Sunday morning.
5. They are more likely to engage in ad hominem attacks that cause their adversaries to find a friendlier blog.
6. They don't understand constitutional law.
When my son was in high school, he got a History assignment to rewrite the Bill of Rights as collective, group rights rather than individual rights. It was easy. He basically paraphrased the Soviet Constitution which has all the guarantees of rights for the citizenry - as determined by the government, which is defined as the final authority and grantor of rights.
I have been amazed to see liberal legislators and progressive jurisprudence espouse the same philosophy, amazed and disgusted.
"The people get to vote on how they think the Constitution should be interpreted."
Mr. Franklin, what kind of government have you given us?
A Republic, if you can keep it.
(Perhaps Althouse was referring only to the forms in Wisconsin, in which case the rest of us may have a few more years grace.)
steve uhr said...
"Why is it that the commentators to this politically middle-of-the-road blog think that Bradley's philosophy is correct by a margin of more than 15 to 1?"
Because almost nobody in the world wants to have the country living at the whim of 9 appointed for life lawyers who haven't changed a tire or probably bought their own groceries in years. We want them to read the words in the constitution and apply them to law and be heard little and felt less.
steve uhr said...
Why is it that the commentators to this politically middle-of-the-road blog think that Bradley's philosophy is correct by a margin of more than 15 to 1?
7. Because Bradley's philosophy is correct.
I must say I'm just guessing when I say that, having never investigated Bradley or her philosophy ( I don't live in Wisconsin ). But, based on her preferred supremes, it is an educated guess.
I like the way steve uhr thinks the commenters here would pull a hair for what Althouse thinks. That's some damned fine comedy.
And is #4 supposed to upset all the atheists and agnostics who congregate here? Know your audience, steve uhr, you dopey Leftist.
As for ad hominem, it is cute that you think people on the Left are victims. President Bushitler McChimpy Halliburton knows exactly how you feel. Try making a point that is not laughable next time. You mentally incontinent boob.
Cruz for Supreme Court Justice.
Its obvious we need elections for SCOTUS Judges. I say chop the country into 9 equal voting parts and lets elect them every 12 years.
Giving these wacko Birds life tenure when they're acting like a never ending Constitutional Convention was one of biggest mistakes of the founding fathers.
I'd vote none of the above, but that wasn't an option. My own view closely mirrors Justice Holmes. I think both so-called theories of constitutional interpretation boil down not to any substantive position but rhetorical stances: first we decide, then we explain.
The main difference between Holmes and I is that I have no love for the legal profession and he did. His advocacy of judicial restraint was an attempt to convince people like me to let the court alone. I don't buy it. Get rid of SCOTUS. Because the only way to restrain judges is not to have them, something Jesus understood quite well.
I don't think either one is saying exactly waht she thins, but the one who is a bigger liar is Kloppenberg, because what she says is, prima facie, doubletalk.
This is ot really enough to tell how good Bradley would be, but Kloppenberg is not at all what I want.
As of quarter to three, CDT, I see that 19 of you (out of 345) picked Kloppenberg. What do you 19 use in lieu of brains when voting?
I don't understand how anyone can object to originalism. The Constitution is legitimate because it was agreed to by the 13 states. The amendments made since then were all agreed to by large majorities of the people's representatives in the individual state legislatures. All of these people voted to approve the Constitution and its subsequent Amendments based on what those texts meant at the time they were voting. To say that the words mean something different now is to say they mean something that the voters specifically did not approve. How can that be legit? It's obvious bullshit. If you don't like what the Constitution says, you amend it. You don't change the definitions of the words comprising it.
One of the woman is an advocate and the other is a judge. Different temperaments and skill set.
steve uhr said...Why is it that the commentators to this politically middle-of-the-road blog think that Bradley's philosophy is correct by a margin of more than 15 to 1?
Kloppenburg is part of the freak-left of Wisconsin that damned near burned down Madison when the Republicans legislated some things that were not on their leftist agenda.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा