August 25, 2010The Commerce ClauseIt's like hearing me drone on and on about Wickard v Filburn and Raich v Gonzales -- except with good production values. Awesome.
Posted by John Kranz at 3:24 PM
| Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:
Libtard: "I think what people choose to eat well might be regarded as a personal liberty." MIGHT? Libtard: "What we put into our bodies really is part of our freedom, but there's not a freedom to not have medical care." Why not? Libtard: "Power can be used in silly ways, and the Constitution isn't our protector against undesirable government actions, only unconstitutional ones." Begging the question, what is unconstitutional? From the beginning... Libtard: "And the Supreme Court very broadly defined the scope of Congress' commerce power (...) Congress can regulate any activity that taken cumulatively has an effect on interstate commerce." "Taken cumulatively" meaning "if everyone did it." Per the Constitution, Article I, Section 8: Seems to depend on what the meaning of the word "regulate" is. 1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc. 2. to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc. June 30, 2010On the Total Hossness of Justice ThomasAshby Jones (that's a family name, I wonder if we're related -- no, not "Jones!") has a post on the WSJ Law Blog suggesting Justice Thomas's Concurrence in McDonald is his Finest Hour. I think -- for those who weren't paying attention in Raich v Gonzales -- it separates Thomas's philosophical devotion to originalism versus Justice Scalia's attempt to shape a conservative society. But in a separate concurrence, Justice Thomas boldly went where no justice has gone before: to the arms of the Privileges or Immunities Clause. He wrote: It also explains the arguments and methods of 14th Amendment Incorporation in words a drop out hippie guitar player can understand. Hat-tip: Instapundit
Posted by John Kranz at 10:15 AM
| Comments (4)
But johngalt thinks:
This is a great place for me to express how much relief I feel to be able to leave the coverage of 2nd Amendment issues in the more capable hands of someone other than myself. (At least here on ThreeSources.) Justice Thomas is most certainly a hoss, but not the only one. Posted by: johngalt at June 30, 2010 2:49 PM
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
I like Thomas' attempt to reason, but I have three problems with it. First, it justifies my dislike of codified law: justice is no longer a matter of right and wrong, but what's codified and interpreted. Second, and this is more with Jones, citing the 14th Amendment (anything beyond the original 10) is actually not being an originalist, but a textualist. There is a clear difference between the two. The 14th Amendment was contrary to the Constitution's original intent, which was that people were citizens of their states or of the "United States" (meaning parts of the United States not part of any state, like D.C. and territories, where the federal government had jurisdiction). It wasn't until the 14th that Congress had clear authority over citizens of the several States, and companies that did not participate in interstate commerce. This was the gateway to federal taxation of individuals, of federal control of companies. Third, the "privileges and immunities" clause is erroneous at best in what it attempts to protect. In a century, the philosophy of the American Revolution had been lost. Very well, so "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" -- but wait, what are those, precisely? They're things that are given to you by government. Rights are not given. You have them, end of story. Therefore, the right to keep and bear arms is not a "privilege" nor an "immunity." If Thomas had based his opinion that gun control is depriving people of their right to liberty and property, and the right to life in the case of individuals who purchase guns for self-defense, then I'd have been impressed. Barnett's a good guy, but IMO he doesn't go far enough. (That's just the nature of the anarchist: everyone who isn't is not sufficiently extreme, by definition.) When I met him not too long after R. v. G., he disagreed with my comment that he was a pallbearer for the 10th Amendment (I believed in the Constitution then), and he also disagreed that ultimately it takes only five black-robed tyrants to decide the course of this country. But what was the Kelo case, then, if not five people who asserted their will over 300 million? Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 1, 2010 1:58 PM
But jk thinks:
Perry, I was spellchecking my response when my computer died (yes, it was really that good). I am very sympathetic to your "first ten" argument. The original doc and the Bill of Rights is a better governmental blueprint than what we got. The problem is the lack of #13. You can say that is an historical anomaly, but I am not certain. Researching a book I hoped to write (and may someday) I read pretty heavily in antebellum politics and jurisprudence. I'm convinced that slavery is more than a blot on the Constitution; it truly is more along the lines of original sin. The Fourteenth is our atonement and repentance. I've long thought you could rewrite the 14th and somehow fix it. But I don't believe that anymore. Taney's majority opinion in Dred Scott v Sandford was perfectly rational (if in dicta) in a "first 12" Constitutional order. It required the 14th to right it and us to live with the consequences.
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
"The problem is the lack of #13." Oh, definitely. That's why a literal "originalist" intent necessarily sanctions slavery. That's no small part of why my friend Billy Beck says the Constitution is nothing like the Declaration of Independence. And he is correct. And yes, even Jefferson owned slaves. However, I look to his words as things he aspired to live up to but could not, being a product of his time. So what's the solution, to accept the 14th, which "guarantees" slaves' liberty at the cost of enslaving everyone to the federal government? And as good as it seems to some, it was rammed down the southern states' throats (read up on the post-war military occupation when they refused to ratify it). Or do we recognize that rights do not need to be codified in law? "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." is what made the American Revolution so distinctive. Not "Our laws declare..." or "We lay down these truths in our laws," in the style of the French "Revolution" that traded one master for others. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 7, 2010 11:26 AMJune 29, 2010McDonald Gets Better and BetterI think it was Randy Barnett who started my concern that the Privileges and Immunities clause was not finding favor with the high court in the oral arguments for McDonald v Chicago. Yesterday I thought victory was flawed because of the narrower scope of using 14th Amendment Due Process. Barnett himself sees the sun shining on P&I today. In a guest editorial, he praises Justice Thomas's majority-producing concurrence. The deciding vote was cast by Justice Clarence Thomas, whose concurring opinion rested solely on the Privileges or Immunities Clause. While agreeing "with the Court that the Second Amendment is fully applicable to the States," he did so "because the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment as a privilege of American citizenship." Also a great reminder of what a complete hoss Justice Thomas is. I know Scalia is the Conservative darling, but he was wrong on Raich and started the derisive comments in the oral arguments of McDonald. None should forget either then-Senator Biden's disingenuous and cruel treatment of him in his confirmation hearings nor the (no I won't apologize) racist attack on Thomas's intellect by Senate Majority Leader Reid. He claimed his opinions were poorly written and then could not name one. Barnett claims that Thomas has delivered the goods. By declining to take issue with Justice Thomas's impressive 56-page originalist analysis, the other justices in effect conceded what legal scholars have for some time maintained—that the court's cramped reading of the clause in 1873 was inconsistent with its original meaning. Yesterday the lost Privileges or Immunities Clause was suddenly found. And some day it may be fully restored to its proper place as the means by which fundamental individual rights are protected under the Constitution against abuses by states.
Posted by John Kranz at 12:00 PM
| Comments (0)
June 16, 2010PrecedentI'll have to agree with Ilya Somin. I'd love the idea of Clarence Thomas running for President. But I am not so keen on President Obama replacing my favorite Justice with Maya Angelou. I have to hat tip and correct Professor Reynolds, however. He asks "who gives up a Supreme Court seat to run for President?" I thought I remembered, and the story checks out: Hughes was offered the vice-presidential nomination in 1908 by William Howard Taft but declined. In October 1910, Hughes was appointed by Taft as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Hughes resigned from the Supreme Court on June 16, 1916 to be the Republican candidate for President of the United States in the U.S. presidential election, 1916; after losing the election he returned to the practice of law, and he re-entered government service as United States Secretary of State under President Harding.
Posted by John Kranz at 6:52 PM
| Comments (0)
May 19, 2010We've Established What You Are General Kagan...Now we're quibbling over price! Professor Mankiw risks faculty wrath by linking to this Commentary post criticizing his employer. I heard Speaker Gingrich on FOXNewsSunday, inquire why Saudi Money was pure as the driven snow, yet the US Military's was tainted by homophobia: This is a very good point for GOP senators to press Ms. Kagan on during her confirmation hearings. Apparently, accepting the money from a repressive government where sodomy is punishable by death is hunky-dory, but the military, in carrying through on the Clinton administration’s policy, deserves to be singled out for condemnation. (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is a “moral injustice of the first order,” according to Kagan.) How exactly does one explain the different Indignation Meters at Harvard Law School? Fun to whack at Hahvaad whenever possible, but I hold my view that "The General" is as good a nominee as we'll see from this President.
Posted by John Kranz at 2:35 PM
| Comments (0)
May 17, 2010Better Late Than Never, Nino!Ilya Somin is not a big fan of the Comstock decision. It's an interesting post, a bit over my pay grade in parts, but I really appreciated this: I also agree with most of the strong critique of the majority opinion in Justice Thomas’ dissent (joined by Justice Scalia). Scalia’s support for Thomas’ position in this case suggests that he may be having second thoughts about the very broad view of the Necessary and Proper Clause that he embraced in Gonzales v. Raich. One can hope. I have great respect for Justice Scalia but have never come to terms with his vote in Raich. My lefty friends use it to point out that the Conservative wing of SCOTUS are no less "interpretive," they just have different goals. Reading Somin's piece, I'd say Comstock certainly does not shut the door on a successful ObamaCare® challenge. I think that has been overstated.
Posted by John Kranz at 7:35 PM
| Comments (0)
May 11, 2010Elena Kagan: Good News for the Right?It would appear that Elena Kagan's total lack of judicial experience is her greatest asset to Obama. She will not be burdened by trivialities such as the law and Constitution when applying "social justice" to cases brought before the Court. In a perverse way, however, her presense on the Court may benefit in the long run. She will reliably vote for liberal principles, but she is replacing a reliable vote for those principles anyway, so no net gain for the Libs. Her added value to the Court (from the Left's perspective) would be to attract moderate justices to her way of thinking. But with a total lack of experience as a jurist, she may surely be seen as nothing more than a legal light-weight. Even moderate justices generally care about the law and the Constitution. As such, she may not factor into many decisions. Wishful thinking? The Refugee has committed worse offenses.
Posted by Boulder Refugee at 3:35 PM
| Comments (2)
But jk thinks:
The Refugee accurately states my view of Justice Sotomayor. I think President Obama is betting that her charm and her aptitude in faculty politics make her an effective advocate for progressive positions. Will she be a Frankfurter or Brandeis that truly leads, or a Souter who votes? I think time will tell. I certainly don't like her positions on Executive Power, but elections have consequences, and I am unlikely to appreciate the jurisprudence of anyone the President is apt to pick. Kagen's a good pick and not worth obstructing. Reason Magazine points out that a confirmation hearing is a great opportunity to establish clear differences even if votes are not there to derail a pick. Posted by: jk at May 11, 2010 4:30 PM
But Boulder Refugee thinks:
Thank NED the conservatives defeated Harriet Miers! Can you image the Court's direction with her instead of Alito? Posted by: Boulder Refugee at May 11, 2010 10:42 PMMay 10, 2010Quote of the DaySo Kagan may well be the perfect nominee for him. She's a cerebral academic who fits Washington's definition of a centrist: She's likely defer to government on both civil liberties and regulatory and commerce issues. And though libertarians allegedly share ground with Republicans on fiscal and regulatory issues and with Democrats on civil liberties issues, neither party cares enough about those particular issues to put up a fight for them. Which is why Kagan sailed through her first confirmation hearings, and is widely predicted to sail through the hearings for her nomination to the Supreme Court. -- Radley Balko
Posted by John Kranz at 5:02 PM
| Comments (0)
A Lot to Like HereNothing substantive, but pretty engaging. Hat-tip: Instapundit Side point. I don't troll the briny depths of the Internet for foul commentary, but is there any place worse than YouTube? If you click to watch it on the YouTube site, the first dozen or so comments are anti-Semitic, personal, and foul mouthed. You have to get quite a ways down the page before someone mentions the content. I have a few Larry Kudlow, President Reagan, and Speaker Pelosi videos up at my old (pre-coffeemusiclive) account, and every few weeks I'll get an email of a vulgar rant on one side or the other, but I do not recall ever getting an interesting, respectful of even germane comment on any of them.
Posted by John Kranz at 4:47 PM
| Comments (7)
But jk thinks:
Not spontaneous order, tg, "Tragedy of the Commons." Posted by: jk at May 10, 2010 6:21 PM
But T. Greer thinks:
Mate, those two concepts can be used to explain the same thing. Nobody said that commons was bereft of spontaneity. Or order, if you give it long enough. Posted by: T. Greer at May 10, 2010 9:54 PM
But jk thinks:
Not as I use them. Spontaneous order emerges from the pricing mechanism when property rights are protected. The tragedy of the commons emerges where there are no property rights. I love the "free" YouTube service, but the comment section lends itself to pollution. Posted by: jk at May 10, 2010 11:22 PM
But T. Greer thinks:
Eh, fair enough, you can define things as you will. Can't hold a candle to that. But you know, property rights are hardly organic. They are planned human inventions, backed up by un-Spontaneous organizations. Like bankruptcy court. ^_~ Posted by: T. Greer at May 11, 2010 12:46 AM
But jk thinks:
In my defense, I don't think I am calling a tail a leg. Those terms have currency in the liberty-theory-economics community pretty much as I use them. I may be accused of using a jargon definition over common english usage. Property rights are part of birthright liberty. Tell John Locke and Thomas Jefferson that they are a social construct. Where they are not protected, say in email bandwidth or YouTube comments, no mechanism imposes order on the resource's use.
But T. Greer thinks:
No, you are totally fine, JK. It is only my fault that I have read more works on evolution than I have read books by Hayek, thus I generally work with a different set of assumptions when I hear here the word. And to be clear - nobody says the things that make liberty possible are not social constructions. That something is made by man does not make it less valuable. Posted by: T. Greer at May 11, 2010 11:03 PMMay 5, 2010Or, Maybe NotWatching FOXNewsSunday last week (required viewing for the VRWC), Chris Wallace ended the interview with Sec Janet Napolitano by forcing her to disavow interest in the upcoming Supreme Court vacancy. My old Senator and current Interior Sec Ken Salazar was not afforded the same dignity. I got to thinking that I should start a Salazar SCOTUS boomlet. President Obama gets to make "an Historic nomination of the first Hispanic with male body parts." And we get a nominee who is likely better than anything else we'll see from this Administration. Not sure it's not still a good idea, but Insty links to some cold water. Brian J Noggle reads the Secretary’s comment that "“Our job basically is to keep the boot on the neck of British Petroleum" and is reminded of Orwell: But always— do not forget this, Winston— always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever. Still, we could -- and probably will -- do worse.
Posted by John Kranz at 10:54 AM
| Comments (0)
April 12, 2010Two Views of Justice StevensBoth from Cato. I really do need my TV show. "Tonight, on 'Internecine:' two Cato powerhouses smackdown on the legacy of Justice John Paul Stevens!" [theme music swells in background, cut to scene in three...two...one...] Justice Stevens "grew" from his country-club Republican roots to becoming the Court’s liberal lion. While a friend of liberty in certain limited circumstances, he ultimately hangs his hat on supporting government action over the rights of individuals in contexts ranging from property rights (Kelo v. New London) to the Second Amendment (D.C. v. Heller) to free speech (Citizens United and Texas v. Johnson, the flag-burning case) to executive agency power (Chevron). And even on those issues where friends of liberty can disagree in good faith as a matter of policy, such as abortion and the death penalty, Stevens admittedly and unabashedly asserted his own policy preferences instead of following the law. Timothy J. Lee -- and I read his first -- surprised me with libertarian props for the Ford pick: Justice Stevens wrote the majority opinion in some of the most important high-tech cases of the last four decades. In other cases, he wrote important (and in some cases prescient) dissents. Through it all, he was a consistent voice for freedom of expression and the freedom to innovate. His accomplishments include: "Thanks for tuning in -- next week, Marty Peretz and Mayor Ed Koch square off: Is Obama Insane? Or does he just hate Jews?" BTW: Kindle® fans, CATO@liberty is one of the best Kindle blog subscriptions. It's very inexpensive and provides a lot of good content without following links.
Posted by John Kranz at 6:45 PM
| Comments (0)
March 24, 2010Oh, Foul Opinion!Y'all glazed over when I railed against Raich v Gonzales, and its evil ancestor Wickard v Filburn. But David Kopel cites them as precedent that might uphold the penumbral constitutionality of a health insurance mandate: One source of the impending constitutional challenge to the Obamacare mandate is that [it] exceeds the enumerated powers granted to Congress under Article I, section 8. For example, that the people's grant to power to Congress to regulate commerce among the several states does not include the power to compel people to engage in commerce. [Yale Prof.] Jack Balkin, writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, has two responses: 1. Yes it does, because of [the precedents in] Wickard and Raich, since people without insurance will eventually get sick and then buy health services; and allowing these people to buy health services outside the congressional system would undermine the congressional regulation. 2. The mandate is structured as a tax. Some hope: Americans today are not bound to meekly accept the most far-ranging assertions of congressional power based on large extrapolations from Supreme Court cases that themselves come from a short period (the late 1930s and early 1940s) when the Court was more supine and submissive to claims about centralized power than was any other Supreme Court before or after in our history. Yeah, call Angel Raich -- ask her how that worked out.
Posted by John Kranz at 2:49 PM
| Comments (2)
But johngalt thinks:
Was the Heller v. D.C. ruling not considered to have gone largely against precedent? And that precedent was more voluminous than the crap* cited above. *Working my way up, at least in public, to the f-bomb. Posted by: johngalt at March 24, 2010 3:24 PM
But jk thinks:
Lately, it's more of a firecracker in our house... I am speaking way above my pay grade here, but I do not think Heller was a real stare decisis buster. Because they were not tackling incorporation as DC not a state, it did not run under the worst precedent. McDonald v Chicago will tackle some of those. (The comments above were written by a political hack, not an attorney, and anyone using them for purposes beyond political hackery is cautioned...) February 19, 2010Citizen's United v FECMy progressive friends are incredibly cheesed off at Citizen's United v FEC. A friend posts this on Facebook today:
I know that Jon Stewart and the Huffington Post folks have been whipping this up. After surviving Kelo, Raich and McConnell I find it somewhat amusing to see the left in apoplexy. My friend who posted it is pretty bright (and well known to Colorado ThreeSourcers [HINT: two-letter-guy]) but it is attracting comments from friends, some of whom I suspect couldn't name a judge that wasn't on American Idol. "These guys are all a hundred years old!" "Who made them the boss of me?" Tag, lefties -- you're it!
Posted by John Kranz at 10:38 AM
| Comments (4)
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
"Who made them the boss of me?" Liberals (the modern incarnation, not the classic form) are not just hypocritical, but inherently so. Who made them the boss of me, that they can steal my property to give away? How many liberals still believe it was "the conservative Supreme Court" who decided it was perfectly fine for New London to condemn and sell the property of Kelo and others? Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 19, 2010 11:43 AM
But jk thinks:
We're on the same page, Perry. For the record, here is the respone I left: After surviving Kelo v New London, Raich v Gonzales, and McConnell v FEC I confess that I am enjoying seeing my progressive friends discomfited by SCOTUS. (Tag, lefties -- you're it!) And yet, looking long-term, the legislative branch has been the best protector of our liberties throughout the country's history. Many notable aberrations, but they get the prize. (And the picture is pretty clever!) Posted by: jk at February 19, 2010 11:59 AM
But Boulder Refugee thinks:
They forgot to label the liberal justices with "SEIU, NEA, ACLU, AFL/CIO, NOW, Planned Parenthood," etc. etc. Major oversight. Posted by: Boulder Refugee at February 19, 2010 2:49 PM
But Lisa M thinks:
Refugee, I was actually thinking GE, ABC/Disney, CNN, Knight Ridder, Associated Press, CBS. But I like yours better. Posted by: Lisa M at February 19, 2010 8:04 PMJanuary 29, 2010Quote of the DayAnn Althouse has owned the Alito SOTU story, she gets QOTD yet again: Oh, bullshit. He's a sideshow because he flinches when hit? He's modestly human and not a mannequin. I remember when Obama expressed a desire for Supreme Court Justices with a more sensitive emotional response. Empathy.
Posted by John Kranz at 11:03 AM
| Comments (0)
October 5, 2009Quote of the Month?This quote from Antonin Scalia is from October 1, so it doesn't qualify as QOTD. However, it could qualify for QOTW, QOTM or maybe QOTY. According to Scalia, we are devoting too many of our brightest minds to lawyering. I mean there’d be a, you know, a defense or public defender from Podunk, you know, and this woman is really brilliant, you know. Why isn’t she out inventing the automobile or, you know, doing something productive for this society?
Posted by Boulder Refugee at 11:16 AM
| Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:
He's right. Before you know it there will be such a surplus of lawyers that they'll start inventing specious things to sue and defend people over. Oh, wait a minute... Posted by: johngalt at October 5, 2009 1:32 PMSeptember 25, 2009Today in New LondonDon Surber informs that the great development and jobs promised with the theft of Susette Kelo's land have yet to materialize.
Posted by John Kranz at 8:02 PM
| Comments (0)
July 13, 2009Quote of the DayUnfortunately, neither Democratic nor Republican senators will decry the post-New Deal rulings that transformed our constitutional order from what Princeton professor Stephen Macedo has called "islands of [government] powers in a sea of rights" to "islands of rights in a sea of [government] powers." Unless they can explain how we know which precedents to follow and which to reverse -- apart from liking the results -- all pontificating about "stare decisis" is really about nothing.-- Randy Barnett, with a great idea how the nomination hearings should be conducted.
Posted by John Kranz at 11:08 AM
| Comments (0)
July 12, 2009"Joe the Fireman"Jonathan Adler says Welcome to Washington, Mr. Ricci: Senate Republicans opted to call New Haven firefighters Frank Ricci and Ben Vargas to testify at Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings in order to score political points against Judge Sotomayor over the issue of affirmative action. Now Judge Sotomayor's advocates are seeking to take Frank Ricci down a notch so as to blunt any effect of his testimony. How's that "new style of politics" working out for you? Thugs.
Posted by John Kranz at 12:03 PM
| Comments (0)
June 29, 2009Ricci Overturned!WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court has ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge. -- AP But Jimmy P points out that the betting markets still call her a 95% sure thing for confirmation. UPDATE: Maybe a quote of the day for Justice Alito's concurrence, joined by Scalia and Thomas (C/O Jonathan Adler): Petitioners were denied promotions for which they qualified because of the race and ethnicity of the firefighters who achieved the highest scores on the City’s exam. The District Court threw out their case on summary judgment, even though that court all but conceded that a jury could find that the City’s asserted justification was pretextual. The Court of Appeals then summarily affirmed that decision. The dissent grants that petitioners’ situation is “unfortunate” and that they “understandably attract this Court’s sympathy.” Post, at 1, 39. But “sympathy” is not what petitioners have a right to demand. What they have a right to demand is evenhanded enforcement of the law—of Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination based on race. And that is what, until today’s decision, has been denied them.
Posted by John Kranz at 12:01 PM
| Comments (0)
June 3, 2009Epstein in ForbesNot too often that one guy owns a big story, but Richard Epstein has published two columns on the nomination of Judge Sotomayor that have contained more fact and wisdom than the rest of the world put together. The first one was pretty tough on Sotomayor and provided substantive reasons to oppose her nomination, beyond an eight year old academic speech. Today's questions the tactics and ideas of Karl Rove's -- and conservatives in general -- opposition as he separates conservative versus libertarian opposition to the pick. He even takes a whack at those (rhymes with eh, jay?) who believe in a Borkean standard of strict constructionism: Accordingly, [The Founders] crafted our Constitution as a complex compromise. In one breath, they conferred extensive powers on federal government and recognized broad powers in the states. In the next, they imposed strong limitations on federal and state power, such as the Takings Clause, which states "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." Libertarians, says Epstein, needed activism in Kelo. Superb. Hat-tip: Instapundit
Posted by John Kranz at 11:57 AM
| Comments (3)
But Boulder Refugee thinks:
Sotomayor cannot be considered relative to finding a more qualified constructionist as that is a given. It also is not in the offing. First, Sotomayor will not be defeated because she is too liberal. If she is defeated, it will be because she becomes unacceptable to her own party (think Harriet Miers). The reasons for Dems to defeat her would likely be pluses in my column. The bigger question regards who we would get instead if she were defeated. Rumor has it that she has relatively moderate views on abortion and property rights. That alone would put her ahead of Souter. Empathy when rendering decisions is not exactly new to this Court, nor the Court over the past century. A thorough examination is in order, but it's entirely possible that a second nominee would be far worse, and the second nominee is almost undefeatable politically. Posted by: Boulder Refugee at June 3, 2009 5:52 PM
But jk thinks:
You're singing my song, br. A) We can't lose, nobody is worse than Justice Souter B) We can't win; there's no votes to stop this "historic" nomination. I'll not join you on Judge Sotomayor's being moderate on property rights. In Didden v. Village of Port Chester she shows an expansive view of the Takings Clause that would make Justice Souter blush. Even without a serious shot at stopping the nominee, put me down with those who feel we could sharpen and portray a serious opposition to "trial by empathy" and that that is a pretty good use of time. My final silver lining: I hope that she is not a jurisprudential star that can pull the court farther to the left than her own vote. Better to get a Democrat Harriet Meiers than a Justice Brennen, Douglas (wasn't he that guy in "green Acres?") or Frankfurter. Posted by: jk at June 3, 2009 6:29 PM
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
Don't get me started on her ruling against Didden. Port Chester isn't next to me, but it's in my county. For such rulings, judges should be tarred and feathered, then expatriated over the Pacific at 40,000 feet without a parachute. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at June 4, 2009 9:50 AMJune 2, 2009Racism Under New ManagementThis recent Michael Ramirez cartoon reminds me of a thought I had while riding around on the tractor last Friday baling hay.
When it comes to racial politics it appears there are two distinct points of view amongst people of color: One is that of Dr. Martin Luther King who dreamed of the day that one would be judged by the content of his character and not the color of his skin; the other is akin to "now that there's a 'brother' in the White House it's OUR turn to be the cracker." The question for Ms. Sotomayor is, to which of these views does she subscribe? Thomas Sowell recently told Glenn Beck that the racism franchise in America isn't being dismantled, it's just being put under new management.
Posted by JohnGalt at 1:54 PM
| Comments (0)
May 27, 2009Chief Justice Taney is SmilingI'm pretty certain that several of our early-19th-century Justices shared Judge Sotomayor's belief that their race (white) and gender (male) made them particularly suitable for the elevated responsibility of serving on the nation's highest court. But, I had hoped that we had left that thinking in the past. The lead editorial in the WSJ today prints a longer version of the quote we have all been reading: In a speech published in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal in 2002, Judge Sotomayor offered her own interpretation of this jurisprudence. "Justice [Sandra Day] O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases," she declared. "I am . . . not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, . . . there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." The WSJ Editorial Board and I are not convinced. This is not the same as taking justifiable pride in being the first Puerto Rican-American nominated to the Court, as both she and the President did yesterday. Her personal and family stories are admirable. Italian-Americans also swelled at the achievement of Justice Antonin Scalia, as Jewish-Americans did at the nomination of Benjamin Cardozo. That nails the difference between "modern" judges and constuctionalists. I part company with Professor Reynolds pretty warily, but I see a clear case in Judge Bork's "Tempting of America." And while not many Justices have risen to the ideal, the ideal of a strict, textual reading of the Constitution cannot be abandoned.
Posted by John Kranz at 11:18 AM
| Comments (5)
But johngalt thinks:
While I privately described Judge Sotamayor as "a disaster" prior to her nomination I'm actually pleased with her nomination. (We'll see how pleased I am if she is actually confirmed.) President Obama has serenaded us for months that he wants a Supreme Court justice who considers the practical realities of day-to-day life when forming her legal opinions. It's as though his mind was set long ago to nominate Sotamayor and he's been trying to soften public opinion to the notion of subjective legal justice. While Republicans on the Judiciary Committee may be loathe to oppose a hispanic for political reasons, they owe it to our civic discourse to ask her some objective questions about her judicial philosophy. There should be no harm in this. After all, in the hue and cry about "litmus test" questions on specific issues we were lectured that questions should always be general in nature. This plays right in to a discussion of the idea that our nation should be ruled by its laws and not ruled by men - or by wise latina women. Posted by: johngalt at May 27, 2009 1:52 PM
But Keith thinks:
Strangely, I wasn't under the impression that the Supreme Court was the place where we're supposed to have a cross-section of America and all its component, balkanized identity groups represented. I thought the place where the population of America was supposed to be represented was the House of - (wait for it) - Representatives. I thought the Supreme Court was the place where we were supposed to to put the nine smartest, wisest, most qualified people at reading the Constitution and applying its words to real-life situations. Congress was supposed to take a cross-section of the fat part of America's bell curve; the Supreme Court was supposed to be to upper far end of it. But, I suppose, now that we live in a post-Constitutional America, where the government suddenly has the right to take over whole industries, hire and fire corporate CEOs at will, erase decades of contract law and bankruptcy law at a whim, and even decide who keeps and who loses auto dealerships like a gigantic spoils system, I should learn to accept that it's more important to pander to our identity groups (or pretend to in order to install the one who will reliably cough up the Prezznit's desired decisions) than to find the most brilliant parsers of the law of the land. Since we don't actually seem to have a meaningful Constitution any longer, finding a justice who can apply is would be pretty moot anyway. Why not decide cases based on our subjective life experiences? Posted by: Keith at May 27, 2009 1:58 PM
But Keith thinks:
Every Senator who waxes prosaic about how wonderful it is to be supporting Sotomayor because of her ethnicity had better be able to explain why Miguel Estrada got blocked from the DC Circuit. Posted by: Keith at May 27, 2009 2:04 PM
But jk thinks:
I have a calm, cool head much of the time Keith, but the discrepancy you highlight has made me madder than a wet wasp at a kid's party. The Senate Democrats savaged a brilliant jurist with just as compelling a life story as Judge Sotomayor. After three years, he was forced to withdraw his nomination. Now they and Obama claim to be breaking barriers for the Hispanic community. You'll never hear that anywhere but here (or an equivalent wacko site). The myth will live on. Posted by: jk at May 27, 2009 3:07 PM
But Keith thinks:
Sorry, jk. If it's any comfort, you can be pretty sure I'm as aggravated as you are if I'm making a comment in the form on one growling sentence instead of my usual random speechifying. Posted by: Keith at May 27, 2009 7:21 PMApril 30, 2009Obama SCOTUS PickHow about Justice Arlen Specter? ... awesome.
Posted by AlexC at 10:41 PM
| Comments (1)
But jk thinks:
We could (and likely will) do worse than Justice Specter. Jonah Goldberg calls him "the man who voted 'Glenfiddich' on Impeachment (the best bit of political punditry of all time). In the same vein, I was thinking of Secretary Clinton's husband. Could do worse. Whomever we get, he or she cannot possibly be worse that Justice Souter. Nothing in the world to lose here and, we can hope, President Obama might pick a Souter of his own. Posted by: jk at May 1, 2009 5:51 PMMarch 26, 2009Another Chance Against McCain-FeingoldThe court whiffed on McConnell v FEC. But the WSJ Ed Page reports the Roberts Court may get a shot at restoring the First Amendment in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission With Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito has previously taken a cautious, piecemeal approach to campaign finance law. But as the current case shows, McCain-Feingold is a blunt instrument that gives federal bureaucrats the power to decide what kind of campaign advertising is allowed during an election. If "Hillary: the Movie" isn't allowed, then Michael Moore's documentaries should be banned, and newspaper endorsements would also be suspect despite a specific carve-out in the law. If newspapers didn't have that carve-out, then maybe so many editors wouldn't cheerlead for this kind of law. Amen on that's being one of the lowest moments in two W terms. I'd add McConnell v FEC as one of the lowest of the recent Court.
Posted by John Kranz at 4:26 PM
| Comments (0)
March 12, 2009Constitutional TaxationOne or two of you may have noticed my comment under Tuesday's Quote of the Day. Fewer still may have followed any of the links. I got a chance to investigate futher today. From a November 7, 2002 Press Release by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Counselor at Law, Federal Witness and Private Attorney General: On a much broader scale, the absence of liability statutes raises the specter of widespread government fraud, going all the way back to the year 1913. And, there is no statute of limitations on fraud. So it would seem that refusing to complete a tax return, or even completing it and refusing to sign it, may legally absolve an individual of any federal income tax liability. I met a man who actually adhered to this strategy in the early 1990's. At the time I thought he was a madman. Now I believe I've found his justification. But what of that pesky federal witholding that AlexC lamented? Further stunning proof that these taxes are truly voluntary can be found at IRC section 3402(n). Here, Congress has authorized a form called the “withholding exemption certificate” abbreviated “WEC”. The term “withholding exemption certificate” occurs a total of seventeen (17) times in that one statute alone. I haven't yet found any information on the status of the legal action since the date of this press release. (Is there an honest judge left anywhere in the United States Federal Government?) Here, however, is Counselor Mitchell's brief essay "Let's Dismantle the IRS: This Racket is Busted" Let’s Dismantle IRS: by Paul Andrew Mitchell All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
The hunt was on, several years ago, when activists like this writer confirmed that IRS was never created by any Act of Congress. It cannot be found in any of the laws which created the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The U.S. Supreme Court quietly admitted as much, at footnote 23 in Chrysler Corp. v. Brown. In a nation governed by the rule of law, this omission is monumental. The search for its real origins has taken this nation down many blind alleys, so convoluted and complicated are the statutes and regulations which govern its employees rarely, if ever. The best explanation now favors its links to Prohibition, the ill-fated experiment in outlawing alcohol. The Women’s Temperance Movement, we believe, was secretly underwritten by the petroleum cartel, to perfect a monopoly over automotive fuels. Once that monopoly was in place, Prohibition was repealed, leaving alcohol high and dry as the preferred fuel for cars and trucks, and leaving a federal police force inside the several States, to extort money from the American People. All evidence indicates that IRS is an alias for the Federal Alcohol Administration (“FAA”), which was declared unconstitutional inside the several States by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1935. The result of the high Court’s decision in U.S. v. Constantine confined that FAA to federal territories, like Puerto Rico, where Congress is the “state” legislature. Further confirmation can be found in a decision by the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Used Tire International, Inc. v. Manual Diaz-Saldana, which identified the latter as the real “Secretary of the Treasury.” The Code of Federal Regulations for Title 27 also identifies this other “Secretary” as an office in San Juan, Puerto Rico. This is ominous data. It serves to suggest that IRS has no authority whatsoever to mail envelopes from the “Department of the Treasury.” Such obvious deception is prohibited by federal mail fraud statutes, and defined as a predicate to racketeering. Moreover, the vagueness now proven to frequent the Internal Revenue Code forces a legal conclusion that the entire Code is necessarily void, read “no legal effect.” The high Court’s test for vagueness is obviously violated when men and women of common intelligence cannot agree on its correct meaning, its proper construction, or its territorial application. Take, for instance, a statute at IRC section 7851. Here, Congress has said that all the enforcement provisions in subtitle F shall take effect on the day after the date “this title” is enacted. These provisions include, for example, filing requirements, penalties for failing to file, and tax evasion. Guess what? Title 26 has never been enacted into positive law, rendering every single section in subtitle F a big pile of spaghetti, with no teeth whatsoever. Throughout most federal laws, the consistent legislative practice is to use the term “this title” to refer to a Title of the United States Code. To make matters worse, conscientious courts (an endangered species) have ruled that taxes cannot be imposed without statutes assigning a specific liability to certain parties. There are no statutes creating a specific liability for taxes imposed by subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code. This is the set of statutes that impose the federal income tax. Look at it this way: if Congress imposed a tax on chickens, would that necessarily mean that the chickens are liable for the tax? Obviously not! Congress would also need to define the farmer, or the consumer, or the wholesaler, as the party liable for paying that tax. Chickens, where are your tax returns? Without a liability statute, there can be no liability. This now opens another, deeper layer in this can of rotting worms. If IRS is really using fear tactics to extort an unlawful debt, then it qualifies for careful scrutiny, and prosecution, under the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act aka “RICO”. How fitting, and how ironic, that IRS is legally domiciled in Puerto RICO. When we get down to brass tacks, we find that Congress encourages private Citizens to investigate and bust rackets, mainly because it perceived a shortage of public prosecutors talented enough to enforce RICO statutes against organized crime syndicates. This shortage is the real reason why the RICO statute at 18 U.S.C. 1964 awards triple damages to any party who prevails, using the civil remedies it provides. And, happily, State courts like the Superior Court of California also enjoy original jurisdiction to litigate and issue these remedies. All of this would approach comedy in the extreme, were it not also the case that IRS launders huge sums of money, every day, into foreign banks chiefly owned by the families that founded the Federal Reserve system. Did you think the Federal Reserve was federal government? Guess again! One of the biggest shocks of the last century was an admission by President Reagan’s Grace Commission, that none of the income taxes collected by IRS goes to pay for any federal government services. Those taxes are paying interest to these foreign banks, and benefit payments to recipients of entitlement programs, like federal pension funds. So, the next time your neighbors accuse you of being unpatriotic for challenging the IRS, we recommend that you demand from them proof that IRS is really funding any federal government services, like air traffic control, the Pentagon, the Congress, the Courts, or the White House. Don’t hold your breath. Honestly, when all the facts are put on a level table top, there is not a single reason why America should put up with this massive fiscal fraud for one more day. It’s now time to dismantle the Internal Revenue Service. Keeping all those laundered funds inside this country will result in economic prosperity without precedent in our nation’s history. Let’s bury IRS beneath the Titanic, where it can rust in peace forever along with the rest of the planet’s jellyfish. America deserves to be a living, thriving Republic, not another victim of Plank Number Two in the Communist Manifesto. About the Author: Paul Andrew Mitchell is a Private Attorney General and http://www.supremelaw.org See also: “U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Falls Silent in Face of SUBPOENA for Tax Liability Statutes” “31 Questions and Answers about the IRS” “What Is the Federal Income Tax?” “Electronic Censors Found at U.C. Berkeley’s Law School” “Private Attorney General Backs UCB’s Graduate Instructors” “Paul Mitchell Blasts Clinton, Rubin for Racketeering” “Paul Mitchell Applauds House Vote to Kill IRC” “Paul Mitchell Urges Nation to Boycott IRS” “The Kick-Back Racket: PMRS” “Congresswoman Suspected of Income Tax Evasion” “Our Proposal to Save Social Security” “Charitable Contributions by the Federal Reserve” “Legal Notice in re Withholding Exemption Certificates” “A Cogent Summary of Federal Jurisdictions” “BATF/IRS -- Criminal Fraud” “Income Taxes and Government Fraud” “A Monologue on Federal Fiscal Fraud” “Miscellaneous Letters of Correspondence”
# # #
Posted by JohnGalt at 3:06 PM
| Comments (8)
But jk thinks:
I s'pose. I know a guy (and I think you do, too) who makes an impassioned and reasonable sounding case that he does not have to pay taxes because of a non-capitalized 's' in State in the 14th Amendment. So, that works just fine until he gets a job and has to explain it to HR that "he doesn't need to fill out a W-4 because he is a sovereign citizen of the State of Colorado." I just think this will land you in the same (rhymes with 'jackpot') place. The sad part of my disbelief, though, is the alacrity with which our State and Federal legislators would rectify any situation that threatened incoming revenue. I don't think that a Congress that just passed a trillion or two in spending last month would allow a return to 19th Century funding. Posted by: jk at March 13, 2009 10:38 AM
But johngalt thinks:
I gave a few minutes thought to the consequences of a tax that everyone has to pay. Since one can't get blood from a turnip and government spending can't stop on a dime, the deficit would be monumental until outflows could be made to match inflows. It would be chaotic - perhaps even disastrous (particularly in urban areas.) But it would be RIGHT. Posted by: johngalt at March 13, 2009 11:30 AM
But jk thinks:
Stop me if I'm just being argumentative. But I think you're falling into the Libertarian trap of "misoverestimating" your electoral support. Again I suggest that your most optimistic scenario is realized. Justice Ginsberg, writing the concurrent opinion of the court's 8-0 majority (Associate Justice Scalia was hunting with Dick Cheney) vacates the 16th Amendment. You and I would cheer; Rep Ron Paul and Jeff Flake would jockey for position; The Fair-taxers would fill SPAM-filters everywhere... ...and the rest of the world would act as quickly as it could to overcome this little procedural obstacle. This could threaten health care to children! The AARP would mobilize 60 million hotel-discount card holders with a TV blitz. In the end a crushing majority would line up to get back to the status quo ante before their checks were delayed. Sad, perhaps, but I cannot look at any recent election cycles and see a desire for a do-over (maybe on "Dancing with the Stars...") Posted by: jk at March 13, 2009 2:31 PM
But johngalt thinks:
"... this little procedural obstacle." Are you suggesting that the Constitution of the United States could be amended by an act of congress, or of the president? I suppose you have cause there because that's what's been done in the case of the 16th amendment, and others. I'm afraid the constitution has become nothing more than a rallying cry for freedom-loving Americans. It sure doesn't stop our government from doing what it damn pleases. Posted by: johngalt at March 17, 2009 1:26 PM
But jk thinks:
I'm suggesting that they'll do whatever it takes. If they can ignore it they will, but if they have to, they will break the world land speed record in ratifying a new amendment. They could do it in three days, with very little objection. Posted by: jk at March 17, 2009 1:54 PM
But johngalt thinks:
Maybe I'm just a rube. Two-thirds of the members of both houses of congress, then majority vote by legislatures of three-fourths of the states seems a tall order to me. Three days? Really? And a separate question: You really don't think we could muster 34 senators OR 145 congressmen to keep America as the world's sole Republic? http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html June 27, 2008The Constitution is a Hoax!My personal favorite treatment of the illogic of the minority in D.C. v Heller comes from WSJ's James Taranto in yesterday's Best of the Web. "The [Supreme] Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons," Justice John Paul Stevens writes in a brave dissent in District of Columbia v. Heller, the just-decided case striking down the federal district's near-total ban on firearms.
Reuters has their number. "Although an individual now has a constitutional right to own guns, that new right is not unlimited, wrote [Justice Antonin] Scalia, a hunter," the news service reports today. Justice Stevens is 88, and he is generally considered old. If this right really dated back 217 years, Reuters could not describe it as new. Scalia engages in a lot of fancy-pants wordplay in order to conceal his hoax. For example: In any event, the meaning of "bear arms" that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby "bear arms" connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving "bear Arms" its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war--an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. . . . Worse still, the phrase "keep and bear Arms" would be incoherent. The word "Arms" would have two different meanings at once: "weapons" (as the object of "keep") and (as the object of "bear") one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying "He filled and kicked the bucket" to mean "He filled the bucket and died." Grotesque. Yet constructions like this allow us to point out that Justice Scalia created out of whole cloth a new constitutional and pandered to the extreme right. You can see why they make him uncomfortable. Scalia also faulted Justice Stephen Breyer for taking account of the practical implications of this so-called constitutional right: He criticizes us for declining to establish a level of scrutiny for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions. He proposes, explicitly at least, none of the traditionally expressed levels (strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis), but rather a judge-empowering "interest-balancing inquiry" that "asks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute's salutary effects upon other important governmental interests." . . .. After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments for and against gun control, Justice Breyer arrives at his interest-balanced answer: because handgun violence is a problem, because the law is limited to an urban area, and because there were somewhat similar restrictions in the founding period (a false proposition that we have already discussed), the interest-balancing inquiry results in the constitutionality of the handgun ban. QED. Here is what Breyer had to say in his dissent: The argument about method, however, is by far the less important argument surrounding today's decision. Far more important are the unfortunate consequences that today's decision is likely to spawn. Not least of these, as I have said, is the fact that the decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States. I can find no sound legal basis for launching the courts on so formidable and potentially dangerous a mission. In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas. Surely everyone can agree that as a practical matter, Breyer has the better of the argument. After all, Heller was decided only a few hours ago, and already the District of Columbia has declared a "crime emergency."
Posted by JohnGalt at 6:52 PM
| Comments (0)
May 14, 2008Loving v VirginiaI guess I am a whiner, but I find it easy to rattle off a dozen Supreme Court decisions that I think are evil, affronts to liberty or just totally whacked. Lochner, and Korematsu, and Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson all live in infamy, I hope the bulk of their work is ignored because it is so good. When asked to name unambiguously good SCOTUS decisions, I always lead with Loving v. Virginia. The 1967 case has been in the news of late because Mildred Loving has recently passed away. Kim Strassel did a nice segment on the FOX News Journal Editorial Report, and the NYTimes has an interesting article today with some interesting backstory. The Supreme Court ruling underscored the stupidity and unfairness of segregation. And the case drew back the curtain on the secret history of race in the South. But for Mildred and Richard this struggle was not about changing the world. It was about fighting for the right to be married to one another and then returning to the community that was their home. An unalloyed good -- from the Warren Court, no less! I find it hard to name others. No doubt Brown was the right choice, but look what its remedies have done. I like Beck, and Bakke, and Schechter Poultry Corp v United States, but then I run out of good ones.
Posted by John Kranz at 11:58 AM
October 23, 2007Unhappy AnniversaryThe markets have recovered spectacularly from their losses twenty years ago. But the Supreme Court of the United States has not been so fortunate. Gary McDowell recaps this historical outrage and puts it into perspective. (free link) Twenty years ago today the United States Senate voted to reject President Reagan's nomination of Judge Robert H. Bork to the Supreme Court. The senators may have had every reason to believe that was the end of the story. However ugly it had been, however much time it had taken, Mr. Bork's defeat was only one more routine sacrifice to partisan politics. But time would prove wrong anyone who actually thought that. The battle over Mr. Bork was politically transformative, its constitutional lessons enduring. My favorite piece of trivia from Justice Clarence Thomas's book was that Judge Bork and his wife joined him for a dinner to celebrate Thomas's confirmation. Bork had set the stage for the Thomas fight. Thomas had the advantage of knowing how brutal the opposition would be, and less of a paper trail. Post Bork (think about the world if Bork had been confirmed instead of Anthony Kennedy) we have inured to these confirmation battles and adapted: Bush's picks of Alito and Roberts are stellar. But the pain and trials documented in Thomas's memoir are gut-wrenching. Chief Justice Taney was not conformed because of his work as President Jackson's AG in opposition to National Banking. Advice and consent is not new. Nor I suspect is bitter partisan rancor. But the intrusion of direct politics seems new and unwelcome: The price paid has proved high, indeed. The defeat heralded a fundamental transformation in the process surrounding judicial appointments and thereby radically politicized the public's view of the nature and extent of judicial power under the Constitution. Confirmation battles from Mr. Bork to Clarence Thomas to Samuel Alito have taken on the trappings of ordinary political campaigns, from instant polling to rallies and protests and attack ads. Sadly, the courts are no longer above the fray. Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg answered no questions and her leanings and philosophies were well known. Yet she was approved 96-3, based on her intellect and integrity. It is a crime that the same offer was not extended to Judge Bork. UPDATE: I guess it is a good day to bring this up. I have had a copy of this paper on my hard drive for some time. "Sex, Lies and Jurisprudence: Robert Bork, Griswold, and the Philosophy of Original Understanding" by none other than blogging deity Glenn Reynolds (moment of silence as the prophet's name is invoked...). Professor Reynolds links to it again today as he links to McDowell's piece and says "I also think that Bork was an unsuitable nominee who deserved to be rejected. And I say this as someone who is, in fact, more of an originalist than Bork, whose originalism was of a rather dubious and frequently uninformed nature." I'm a big Bork fan. While there's every possibility I am just not bright enough to grab the subtleties, a couple readings of this (lengthy but very accessible) paper leave me wondering if Reynolds and I read the same book. I do not see the points in "Tempting" that Reynolds refutes. If the Perfesser is "more originalist" than Bork, that's swell. I see Bork as more originalist than any of the current members save Thomas and possibly Roberts and Alito. The "Borking" gave us Justice Kennedy and likely frightened off several originalist nominees and the Presidents who would choose them. I cannot see how anybody who seeks original intent or text would not agree that the cause was not served when Bork was defeated.
Posted by John Kranz at 11:35 AM
| Comments (2)
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:
Think on this: with Bork on the court, the Kelo ruling would have been on the side of freedom. Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 23, 2007 4:11 PM
But jk thinks:
It's difficult (and depressing) too imagine all that would have been different had we been ruled by the American Constitution for the last 20 years. Posted by: jk at October 23, 2007 5:37 PMJune 25, 2007Free SpeechifyingWhile the rest of us are disappointed in today's Supreme Court "McCain-Feingold" ruling not going far enough to eliminate the dissent crushing provisions, "blackrobe" at Keystone Politics complains for another reason. Once again, the court reverses a recent holding. This panel has shown that it has no respect for the notion of stare decisis. Yeah! Because a living constitution only flows in one direction! To the left! Political speech be damned! Besides, there's no do overs in Supreme Court decisions! None! Once decided, things just are! Waaaaaaaaaaah. Explicitly political speech was exactly kind of speech the framers wanted to protect. McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance "Reform" was a direct attack on that.
Posted by AlexC at 11:30 PM
April 3, 2007Cry havoc! and let loose the wars of DAWGIn Jolly Green Justices, the WSJ Editorial Page -- let us say -- registers its disappointment in the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in Massachusetts v EPA. The five Supreme climatologists granted Al Gore's fondest wish by declaring that "the harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized." The majority warned about a "precipitous rise in sea levels," "severe and irreversible changes to natural ecosystems" and "increases in the spread of disease." So, I suppose the science is settled. If SCOTUS has embraced the DAWG, who am I to be skeptical? I laugh to keep from crying. Every presidential candidate in both parties has, so far, publicly accepted the precepts of anthropogenic global warming. The EPA will continue to be a great cabinet appointment for one of the more liberal members of any party. I was a big fan of Gov. Christine Todd-Whitman until President Bush gave her the keys to that regulatory behemoth. Now, that position will have the power to devastate the economy, and even a President McCain or Giuliani will appoint a DAWG acolyte. I shudder to think of what havoc a President (HR) Clinton or Obama administration could wreck. As the editorial is not available online, I have included all the text (Click "Continue Reading...") This is important to read in full. The current Supreme Court is a talented group of jurists, but until yesterday we didn't think their expertise ran to climatology. The Justices would have done better in their big global warming decision if they'd stuck more closely to the law. (Copyright 2007, Dow Jones & Co. -- stolen without permission).
Posted by John Kranz at 11:43 AM
| Comments (2)
But mdmhvonpa thinks:
I suppose somebody has to be the Cuffy Meigs of our times ... Posted by: mdmhvonpa at April 3, 2007 12:10 PM
But johngalt thinks:
This SCOTUS decision is Step 8 in the Road to Serfdom pamplet linked in the previous post. Thanks for the text JK. Posted by: johngalt at April 3, 2007 3:39 PMOctober 19, 2006jk sides with liberal juristsI disagreed with Justice Scalia on Raich v Gonzales, now I have to side with Justices Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Stevens against my hero, Justice Thomas. Law.com - Gimme an 'S': The High Court's Grammatical Divide I'm a Stunk & White guy (hence, cannot jump) and the first rule as I recall was to always add apostrophe-s except for Moses' and Jesus’' (a computer trade magazine suggested adding Gates') Hat-tip: Taranto, who adds more complexity from the WSJ style guide.
Posted by John Kranz at 5:17 PM
June 29, 2006Making LemonsJohn Hawkins @ Right Wing News wants to make lemons of this morning's Gitmo SCOTUS decision.
Also, if the reasoning here is supposed to be that Congress hasn't approved of military tribunals, then let's put it up for a vote. My suspicion is that most Democrats would favor putting these terrorists through the American court system, which would mean long drawn out trials, the risk of classified intelligence sources being revealed, and lots of acquittals. On the other hand, Republicans would favor military tribunals, which would sidestep all of those problems. So basically, we'll have the Democrats who'll be so concerned about the terrorists rights that they'd favor letting them beat the system and get loose to kill more Americans. On the other hand, the Republicans won't be very concerned about the right of foreign terrorists and their first priority will be protecting America. Protecting the rights of Al-Qaeda or protecting America? That would make one hell of a 2006 campaign issue.
Posted by AlexC at 1:32 PM
March 2, 2006The Supreme JudiciaryIt's a good thing for Justice Thomas that the biggest news story today is the Bush Administration's advanced warning of the destructive power of Katrina. Otherwise, his narcolepsy while the court was in session would have been front page. I'm sorry. Not Justice Thomas. Former ACLU lawyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The subject matter was extremely technical, and near the end of the argument Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dozed in her chair. Justices David Souter and Samuel Alito, who flank the 72-year-old, looked at her but did not give her a nudge. The court has struggled in the past to define how much politics is acceptable when states draw new boundaries to reflect population shifts. I could see how the technicalities could be boring. But being the ultimate arbiter of American judisprudence is not my line of work. Couldn't someone have gotten her a cup of coffee?
Posted by AlexC at 2:45 PM
| Comments (5)
But Silence Dogood thinks:
Ok, I gotta jump in with a side comment. Speaking of the Supreme Court, how about the first major decision of the new Roberts Court? The conservatives were on the losing 6-3 end of trying to uphold the Attorney General's power to supercede Oregon's right to die statute. What? The conservative non-activist side is against federalism and directly for challenging a state law by spurious use of anti-drug trafficking laws? How is this either conservative or non-activist? Posted by: Silence Dogood at March 2, 2006 3:41 PM
But jk thinks:
Same score as those who blew off Federalism in Raitch v Gonzales, but not the same people. There are very few pure Federalists (I would cite Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review). I fear most others use it when it serves their interests. I wish it were more firmly followed as a guiding principle but I have learned to be disappointed. Oregon v Gonzales is a blow for Federalism only if you ignore Raitch.
But AlexC thinks:
Here's an article from NRO.. http://www.nationalreview.com/smithw/smith200502230745.asp From the summary, it was more about the Controlled Substances Act and use of drugs regulated by it. The conclusion..
But Silence Dogood thinks:
Maybe you both missed my main point, that lately "judicial activism" is more about what you are being active about than whether you are being active. I would describe judicial activism as inserting judicial power via interpretation of laws rather than allowing the legislative branch (as our elected representatives) to pass laws that govern our interactions. In this case I believe it would be perfectly applicable for the US Congress to pass a federal law banning assisted suicide. This to me would be the proper way to supercede a state law, rather than using an interpretation of the Controlled Substances Act. (which was put in place to control trafficking) The Constitution seems very clear that those powers not granted to the federal government are granted to the states. Additionally how do you not classify the Attorney General's action as executive activism as he too is interpreting laws to reach for the conclusion he wants. Whenever I hear conservatives wail for "strict constructionist" judges rather than "activists" I say bring 'em on. Let see how pleased they are if those judges really do act as constructionists and do not promote the conservative active agenda. Posted by: Silence Dogood at March 3, 2006 12:48 PM
But johngalt thinks:
I would have to agree with Silence on this one. I don't know any more details on this ruling or on Raich than I've read here, but to claim that justices ruling in favor of christian morality in clear contravention of individual rights are not activists is laughable. Posted by: johngalt at March 3, 2006 3:34 PMFebruary 1, 2006Alito's First DayThe other day I rejoiced in the news that we now have a new SCOTUS Justice. With hopeful anticipation I wrote...
Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom got a copy of Justice Alito's first day's itinerary.
8:17: Prank phonecall to Cameron Diaz in which he identified himself as “the Patriarchy Police” and informed her that, now that rape has been legalized, she would need to leave Tuesdays and Thursdays open between 11am and 2 pm (with a working lunch, which would “likely consist of strawberries, whipped cream, honey, or flavored gels"). Good to see he's jumped right into his work.
Posted by AlexC at 5:55 PM
January 31, 2006FinallyThe nearly year long odessey of endless Supreme Court yammering is over. Justice Alito is now the 110th Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. I for one eagerly await the continued strip searches of 8 year old girls, the addition of boys to the list, coathanger abortions and warrantless phone tapping. Let's throw in checking my library withdrawls too.
Posted by AlexC at 12:07 PM
| Comments (2)
But jk thinks:
My inner political hack must point out the obvious: it ends with a big win for President Bush. Roberts and Alito remain stellar picks and constitute a campaign promise kept. Posted by: jk at January 31, 2006 3:51 PM
But AlexC thinks:
It's beginning already! Cindy Sheehan was arrested at to SOTU this evening. January 26, 2006Alito FilibusterDrudge and CNN both are flashing that former Presidential candidate Senator John Kerry is going to initiate a filibuster. A link off of Google News confirms it.
. . . of the SCOTUS nomination of Alito. His office is rounding up support now. I have confirmed this with John Kerry's office staff. With Senator Byrd going for Alito, I believe the number of Senators for Alito stands at 54. Certainly filibusterable. What remains to be seen is how the Gang of 14 will act. By filibustering Alito, Kerry is definately pandering for the angry left vote.
Posted by AlexC at 4:19 PM
| Comments (3)
But jk thinks:
This man was almost President. I hope this is not true, even though it might be a great thing for the GOP. Posted by: jk at January 26, 2006 4:26 PM
But jk thinks:
Here we go again. Dear Senator Salazar: I was disappointed to learn that you were voting against this nominee. I hope that you do not join a filibuster. I rarely suggest that someone looks to Senator Byrd for guidance, but he is right about the politicization of the confirmation process and right that integrity and qualifications matter. Judge Alito clearly has a majority of the US Senate, including three Democrats as i write. Please honor your "gang of 14" pledge and do not join a filibuster against this nominee. Posted by: jk at January 26, 2006 4:47 PM
But jk thinks:
Byron York at the Corner thinks it's a bit of harmless Kerry weaseling From a Senate source: Kerry's call for a filibuster comes after his leadership, that is, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, decided there won't be one. In other words, Kerry was making a brave, Kos-friendly pronouncement in the total confidence that a filibuster will never happen. And now, word is, he is off to Davos to continue what some Republicans are calling a "filibluster." http://corner.nationalreview.com/06_01_22_corner-archive.asp#088399 Byrd to Vote YeaMy brother-in-law just called with the news that WV Senator Robert Byrd will vote to confirm Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. He decried the politicization of the confirmation process and said that it should be about integrity and qualifications. I hate to spoil the moment, but he will be facing reelection this year in a state that is getting redder by the minute. There may be some politics, but there is more honor. His history in the august body paid off here. Bravo Senator Byrd!
Posted by John Kranz at 3:11 PM
January 24, 2006Screw Stare DecisisJudge Alito's recommendation from the Judicial Committee was given today 10-8, and his nomination now heads to the Senate for likely confirmation. Justice Alito will no doubt vote differently from Justice O'Connor and overturn very soon, the worst Supreme Court decision of my lifetime. I can hardly contain my enthusiasm. Roe who? I am talking about McConnell v. FEC., where the court determined that First Amendment rights apply only to Illinois Nazis (man, I hate Illinois Nazis) and child pornographers. Those of us who care about the direction of the country and its polity will have to live under McCain-Feingold. A case is perhaps headed to SCOTUS in time for the next election :Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC that could curb McConnell or give the Roberts Court a chance to revisit it. The WSJ Ed Page sez: A far better result would be for the Supreme Court to use this as an opportunity to revisit McConnell altogether. There is some hope that this could happen. Let's not forget that the deciding vote to uphold McCain-Feingold came from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who may now have heard her last case. Judge Sam Alito is likely to replace her soon, and his track record suggests he is more sympathetic to free-speech arguments. McConnell is, of course, Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell who braved scorn from the elites, media and many of his fellow Senators in a brave attempt to defend our rights.
Posted by John Kranz at 6:15 PM
January 13, 2006Reprehensible ClubIt seems the Senior Senator from Massachusetts, who didn’t know how Judge Sam Alito could be part of "that reprehensible club" meaning CAP, is part of a club that does not celebrate diversity. The Washington Times reports: Sen. Edward M. Kennedy belongs to a social club for Harvard students and alumni that was evicted from campus nearly 20 years ago after refusing to allow female members. Neither this man, nor his party will pay the slightest price for this stunning hypocrisy, but all four of this blog's readers can enjoy it. Double Hat-tip: NewsMax.com email & Taranto
Posted by John Kranz at 3:41 PM
| Comments (5)
But AlexC thinks:
All four readers? You mean "frequent authors!" Posted by: AlexC at January 13, 2006 4:31 PM
But jk thinks:
You're right -- make that "five." I did campus radio once. The same deal, you never really know who's listening... Posted by: jk at January 13, 2006 4:59 PM
But Silence Dogood thinks:
I don't know JK, takes a lot to stun me these days, even given my own dislike of Sen. Kennedy. Maybe its the 6 years of President Bush's "simple Texas boy" shitck and his rantings against the "East Coast liberal establishment". Yeah, who could trust those pompous children of priviledge attending Andover and Yale.... Skull and Bones, they admit women? Then again, my Dad's a Mason (queue spooking music here) Posted by: Silence Dogood at January 14, 2006 4:16 AM
But johngalt thinks:
The voters of Massachusetts endure the hypocrisy and shame of having this filthy little man as their Senator for one reason: He has pull. When the power to distribute the wealth of others is stripped from government then men like Kennedy will take refuge in the only place they can still prosper: College campuses. Posted by: johngalt at January 14, 2006 11:27 AM
But jk thinks:
Silence, my problem is not a general personality comparison between Senator Kennedy and President Bush (though I have strong feelings there), my point is the amount of time in the confirmation hearings that Sen. Kennedy spent in righteous indignation about Judge Alito's membership in CAP. Listening to that all week and reading this was a little much for me to bear.
Joe Biden, Time TravellerD'ja catch this? Senator Biden goes on the Today Show (daring to face the fierce political onslaught from Katie Couric) and complains that Judge Alito didn't answer his question. Fine, but he hadn't asked it yet: Three hours later, in Round 4 of the hearings, Biden finally got around to asking the question he used as a defense to Couric three hours earlier. Again, check out the time stamp. Hat-tip: Insty
Posted by John Kranz at 10:03 AM
January 12, 2006Ups and DownsPicks and Pans, Tony or Tacky, Ups and Downs. I have some thoughts from the hearings: UP Chairman Arlen Specter. No, I can't believe I am writing this. But he was good as Chairman and provided as I suggested the most balanced questioning during his allotted times. He was neither sycophantic nor aggressive. I thought I had lost it, but a friend emails similar thoughts: I've not seen all of this, but what I've seen of Specter has been impressive. He is engaging in substantive debate, remaining respectful and demonstrating how these things might be conducted if serious people participated. [...] The upside is that most people don't get or care about legal trivia, but they all understand the wife's tearful exit after watching her husband savaged by the compassionate, caring party. Alito wins, and you are right, Democrats, thoughtful ones, have to wonder what kind of hands they are in with leadership like Kennedy, Schumer, Leahy, et. al. Down Senator Kennedy. I had forgotten just how bad he is. I heard him on the radio (NPR in my rental car) saying that he still can't come to terms with how Judge Alito could have joined "that reprehensible organization" twenty or thirty years ago. Senator, I don't know how you left Mary Jo Kopechne to die thirty years ago. I guess it's all just water over your car after a while. (I apologize to those who expect more reasoned debate from me. A day with the Dems has poisoned me.) I asked my emailer "isn’t anybody in Massachusetts or the Democrat party embarrassed about this man?" UP Senator Lindsey Graham Senator Graham has not been a team player nor reliable on conservative economic principles. But I was crying as much as the Judge's wife when he did his brilliant defense. My brother-in-law called and insisted that I tape the replay so I could catch Graham. I'm glad I did. Up with a bullet President Bush and Judge Samuel Alito What a great nominee. I remain pleased by this nomination (and Chief Roberts's) Level: Schumer, Leahy, Biden, &c. I didn't expect any better; I didn't get any better.
Posted by John Kranz at 3:32 PM
| Comments (1)
But AlexC thinks:
Long time Threesources readers know that I'm no fan of Senator Specter, but when he and Senator Kennedy (D-Tanqueray) were arguing about some letter that Kennedy wrote, it's hard to say he didn't put Kennedy back in his place. That felt pretty good. Finally! Posted by: AlexC at January 12, 2006 5:11 PMJanuary 11, 2006Kennedy & AlitoThe hits just keep on coming.
Aides immediately alerted Sen. Kennedy that he had co-mingled two major Supreme Court decisions in his question, but Judge Alito chose to answer it anyway. “Sen. Kennedy, I appreciate that question,” said the federal appeals court judge. “At no time have I ever opposed the right of a fetus — without regard to political affiliation, race, or sex — to cast a ballot once he or she has reached legal voting age. You raise issues of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, freedom of choice and civil liberties. Far be it from a judge, or anyone else, to ever interfere with those unalienable rights.” Oh wait. That was Scrappleface. The best satire often has an element of harsh truth.
Posted by AlexC at 4:54 PM
Alito Should Know BetterAck. One of my personal pet peeves has been tweaked by Judge Alito. Courtesy of Powerline, to which John Hinderaker, comments "Wonderful."
"I think the Framers would be stunned by the idea that the Bill of Rights is to be interpreted by taking a poll of the countries of the world," Judge Alito said. "The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to give Americans rights that were recognized practically nowhere else in the world at the time. The Framers did not want Americans to have the rights of people in France or the rights of people in Russia or any of the other countries on the continent of Europe at the time; they wanted them to have the rights of Americans." The first part, I totally agree with... in terms of the first paragraph, I agree with Hindrocket. It is wonderful. It's the second part of the statement that torques me off. The Framers DID NOT GIVE US ANY RIGHTS the Constitution DID NOT GIVE US ANY RIGHTS and the Bill of Rights certainly did not "give us" any rights. Rights are endowed by the Creator, or if your an atheist, at birth. No one gives them to you. They can only be taken away. The Bill of Rights sought to enumerate a certain set of rights, that the government has no ability to take away. Don't believe me? Check the Preamble to the Bill of Rights.
The first ten amendments (twelve originally proposed) were to restrict government, not to give us anything! The Framers had the idea, and the personal knowledge, that governments eventually constrict the freedoms of their people. They wanted to hamstring, for lack of a better term, the government from doing so, or even attempting to do so. Judge Alito, soon to be Justice Alito, should know the difference. He better know the difference. A government that can give you a right is the same one that can take it away. That's a disappointing answer in an otherwise phenomenal performance.
Posted by AlexC at 2:45 PM
| Comments (2)
But johngalt thinks:
Bravo and well done, AlexC. Perfect in every detail, right down to the "little a" atheist reference. I suspect that Alito agrees with us and that this was a case of imprecise language. But Rand taught to take words precisely and literally. I hope that some Republican senator on the committee will ask the nominee about this as a follow-up question. I propose that you suggest it to one of them! Posted by: johngalt at January 11, 2006 3:28 PM
But jk thinks:
Birthright liberty is the foundation of my belief system. I bore people with my three pillars of law, economics and skepticism, but insist that they are rooted in the foundation of Lockeian, Jeffersonian, birthright liberty. So we all agree but I am not taking points off. Judge Alito has suffered the most grueling and humiliating three day job interview I can imagine. The Democrat callers to C-Span say "He looks nervous." I would have been in the hospital yesterday. I'll give him this one. Reply From Senator SalazarDear John:
Posted by John Kranz at 12:57 PM
| Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:
Five despicable words: "Ken Salazar, United States Senator." I considered taking the time to call or write Salazar's office but concluded I'd prefer he vote to reject and, as a result, be expelled from office himself in the 2010 election. He's nothing but a proletarian lap dog. Posted by: johngalt at January 11, 2006 3:25 PMMore AlitoC-Span reran the hearings last night and I was able to see quite a bit more. I think my prize for tenor goes to Senator Arlen Specter. The Democrats I saw were in attack-dog mode. They have a powerful constituency to oppose any nomination from this President and are looking for any flaw they can hang an opposition movement upon. That is not serious governance. The Republicans counterbalance this by throwing softballs and highlighting the Judge's achievements. Senator Specter nicely grilled the nominee, which I think is correct. They can have questions, too, and should. The nominee is very impressive to me. I thought he handled himself with grace and flair. I hope I live long enough that the court becomes something more important than "The US Board of Abortion Regulation." That all it is now to most of these folks. I didn't hear a question on Kelo v. New London (I didn't listen to it all), I didn't hear a question on McConnell v FEC and the only I time I heard about Raitch was when Sen. Hatch used it to compare Alito to Justice O'Connor (they are both on the correct side of this). Lastly, it strengthens my resolve to be a pragmatist. We cannot make Senator Leahy Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. We cannot put Senators Schumer, Kennedy and Biden in charge. If that means we have to put up with RINOs like Snowe, Collins, and Chaffee, so be it. The other guys are not ready.
Posted by John Kranz at 10:01 AM
January 10, 2006Alito NominationBeing a political junkie, it breaks my heart that I just can't get into the Alito - Supreme Court goings on. But the general meme from the blogosphere has been that Alito is competent, highly intelligent and killing the Senators. Especially in light of an exchange like this one.
A: Yes, Senator, the First Amendment protects free speech. Q. Well, why can you give me a straight answer on that issue but not give me a straight answer on abortion? A. Because the text of the Constitution explicitly includes the term "free speech". Case closed. It's like watching the Washington Generals play the Harlem Globetrotters. Wow. Judge Sam "Alioto" should have thrown a brick at the Senator. It would have hurt less. Hopefully this video turns up. Update: The transcript has appeared.
ALITO: Certainly it does. That's in the First Amendment. SCHUMER: So why can't you answer the question of: Does the Constitution protect the right to an abortion the same way without talking about stare decisis, without talking about cases, et cetera? ALITO: Because answering the question of whether the Constitution provides a right to free speech is simply responding to whether there is language in the First Amendment that says that the freedom of speech and freedom of the press can't be abridged. Asking about the issue of abortion has to do with the interpretation of certain provisions of the Constitution. Not quite the same brick as originally described but a good answer, nonetheless. Update #2 The video is available!.
Posted by AlexC at 7:09 PM
| Comments (4)
But jk thinks:
Hate to pounce on someone for a slip of the tongue, but my favorite part of the Schumer torture was when he asserted that Plessey overturned Brown v Board. Posted by: jk at January 10, 2006 7:55 PM
But jk thinks:
I have an unfortunately busy week. I wish I watch them cover to cover. What I saw, Alito comes off VERY well. He is competent and decent and displays an encyclopedic law knowledge. Remind our Coloradans to send a letter to Senator Salazar, our own Gang of 14 member. You can do it right from his website: http://salazar.senate.gov/
But johngalt thinks:
Alito said there is a right to privacy in the Constitution. He cited both the 4th and 1st amendments. This is good. He said he would "follow the law" but what exactly does this mean when he's sitting in judgment of that very law? This is the only weakness I can point to in his oratory. Posted by: johngalt at January 11, 2006 12:16 AM
But johngalt thinks:
As for Kennedy, he is clearly senile. The voters of Massachusetts have an inflappable brand-loyalty in political representation. I'm fully convinced a plurality of them would vote for Tookie Williams over Tom Brady if he changed his name to Tookie Kennedy. Well, except for the part about him being dead. Posted by: johngalt at January 11, 2006 12:20 AMNovember 1, 2005Thumbs up from WSJ Ed PageThe lead editorial in today's WSJ (free link) is a ringing endorsement of Judge Samuel Alito. The court is important to me, but I cannot say that I follow the appellate courts and know the players. I look to others for opinions on different nominees. Great that there are so many lawyers and law professors blogging -- that provides educated assessments (and keeps them distracted from mucking up the economy!) Probably nobody I trust more or feel closer political kinship with, than the WSJ Ed Page. I disagree with them on the drug war, but that's the exception that proves the rule. The whole piece on Alito is positive, but here's my excerpt: In commercial cases, his opinions reveal a regard for free markets and a recognition of the legal and regulatory challenges facing business. He's issued rulings in favor of commercial free speech and enforcing contracts as written. He's also a believer in federalism and putting some limits on the Commerce Clause--as seen in his Rybar dissent, where he cited Lopez to say Congress lacks the authority to regulate intra-state possession of machine guns. With the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist, this is a needed voice on the Court. I'll toss in with the last line: "This is a rumble worth having."
Posted by John Kranz at 10:58 AM
October 31, 2005An Extremist!I'm ready to rumble... Bush Picks Alito for Supreme Court - Yahoo! News Were the opposition smart, they'd compliment the pick and watch the conservatives worry about endorsements from Ralph Neas and Senator Dodd...
Posted by John Kranz at 10:36 AM
| Comments (4)
But johngalt thinks:
I heard a liberal special interest spokesman (pardon me, spokes"person") say that Alito has written that the government "has no business prohibiting ownership of machine guns." I take this to mean the judge disputes the constitutionality of the Federal Firearms Act of 1934 and/or the more pernicious amendment to it in 1986. If so, that's a big mark in the FOR column. It's going to take a while to get to know this nominee, who was one of the "one percenters" in the GOPUSA poll (below.) So far, though, so good. Posted by: johngalt at October 31, 2005 2:37 PM
But jk thinks:
It could just be onomatopoeia, but I take it as a good sign that Instapundit links refer to him as "Scalito." I give deference to other court followers and that guy in the Oval Office, but have not heard anyhing yet to turn me away from this pick. Posted by: jk at October 31, 2005 5:59 PM
But AlexC thinks:
Finally. A known quantity. Better yet, passed the Senate twice 100-0.
But AlexC thinks:
"Scalito" doesn't really bother me. But it does someone. October 28, 2005Conservatives Want BrownA GOPUSA poll of 1000 Conservatives (lets. see there are about ten in Boulder...) shows that most (72%) thought that Harriet Miers "did the right thing" by withdrawing and the consensus is almost as clear for the next nominee: Judge Janice Rogers Brown: 46% Count me in, though there is nobody on that list that I know whom I would not support.
Posted by John Kranz at 11:22 AM
| Comments (2)
But johngalt thinks:
I think this shows that Brown has become a judicial "rock star." When I form a mental image of her confirmation hearings juxtaposed with those of Ms. Miers there's a startling contrast of personality and, dare I say, 'gravitas.' Let's hope that, just this once, the prez reads the polls. Posted by: johngalt at October 29, 2005 10:47 AM
But jk thinks:
65 or not, I have to say that I could go for Ted Olsen as well -- and he would be pretty confirmable. Posted by: jk at October 29, 2005 4:38 PMOctober 27, 2005YESSSS!I'm sure she's a great person, but this is best all around! WSJ.com - Harriet Miers Withdraws Nomination to High Court Janis Rogers Brown anybody? The article goes on to say that the President will be weakened in his next pick. I'd say the Miers contretemps shaves a few points off, but don't agree that the Fitzgerald investigation or Iraq drags too heavily. A good fight will rally the base right now and give the GOP Senate seats in '06 if not a conservative justice in '05.
Posted by John Kranz at 11:23 AM
| Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:
Ding, Dong the Church Lady's Dead! All hail... Janice, Rogers, Brown. Posted by: johngalt at October 27, 2005 2:43 PMOctober 22, 2005Three AbstractionsThat's Attila's caption to this picture:
Posted by John Kranz at 4:06 PM
Miers Withdrawl
"White House senior staff are starting to ask outside people, saying, 'We're not discussing pulling out her nomination, but if we were to, do you have any advice as to how we should do it?' " a conservative Republican with ties to the White House told The Washington Times. The White House denied making such calls. "Absolutely not true," White House spokesman Trent Duffy said. How 'bout that? Conspiracy theorists would say, "It was the plan all along. Get someone so ill-qualified that everyone on all sides would say, 'wtf?'" Then she withdrawls amid the strum and drang we are experiencing now, and the President nominates one of the judicial all-stars that have been suggested instead of her. Janice Rogers Brown, Michael Luttig, etc. Smells of Rove to me. If I were into blaming everything on Rove.
Posted by AlexC at 12:00 PM
| Comments (1)
But jk thinks:
I hope you are right. Reading Krauthammer yesterday, and Jonah Goldberg today, I really hope that this nomination does not proceed. I don't smell Rove in this plan because I don't see that it will help the next nominee> Michael Luttig would be greeted with "Why not a woman like that nice Harriet Miers?" and Janice Rodgers Brown will be "why not a moderate like that lovely Ms. Miers?" Score me on the side that says if Mr. Rove were not preparing for grand juries and stocking up on soap-on-a-rope, this debacle might not have gone down. October 19, 2005Harsh MedicineRobert Bork offers some harsh medicine to President Bush today in a guest editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Slouching Toward Miers He sets the tone early: With a single stroke--the nomination of Harriet Miers--the president has damaged the prospects for reform of a left-leaning and imperialistic Supreme Court, taken the heart out of a rising generation of constitutional scholars, and widened the fissures within the conservative movement. That's not a bad day's work--for liberals. And Mr. Bork doesn't ameliorate much from there: By passing over the many clearly qualified persons, male and female, to pick a stealth candidate, George W. Bush has sent a message to aspiring young originalists that it is better not to say anything remotely controversial, a sort of "Don't ask, don't tell" admonition to would-be judges. It is a blow in particular to the Federalist Society, most of whose members endorse originalism. The society, unlike the ACLU, takes no public positions, engages in no litigation, and includes people of differing views in its programs. It performs the invaluable function of making law students, in the heavily left-leaning schools, aware that there are respectable perspectives on law other than liberal activism. Yet the society has been defamed in McCarthyite fashion by liberals; and it appears to have been important to the White House that neither the new chief justice nor Ms. Miers had much to do with the Federalists. He claims that the President like his father "is showing himself to be indifferent, if not actively hostile, to conservative values." I still think it is too late to pull this nomination, I just wanted to grouse a bit. This is the most serious opposition I have seen. National Review, and even Kristol are taken seriously but thought to have other motives. Robert Bork is every conservative's idea of the perfect Supreme Court justice. This will take its toll.
Posted by John Kranz at 6:53 PM
October 13, 2005Stinging Miers RebukeTaranto devotes all of today’s Best of the Web to a look at her testimony as a member of the Dallas City Council in Williams v. Dallas, a voting-rights case from 1989. It is not shades of Robert Bork, it does not substantiate the President's promises of justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. It looks like a Kennedy or an O'Connor, if not a possible Souter. It's hard to see the "church lady" overturning Raich, and part of the testimony portends poorly for Kelo: Miers didn't directly address the question of eminent domain. But she described a tour of a South Dallas community in which the homes were not to her liking: No word on where she stands on the infield fly-rule or the DH.
Posted by John Kranz at 4:08 PM
| Comments (2)
But AlexC thinks:
It's too bad you couldn't launch the pilot episode of "Internecine" this week. It would have been awesome. Posted by: AlexC at October 13, 2005 7:50 PM
But jk thinks:
Indeed! But who's on the pro-Miers side? If Hugh Hewitt is busy, we're down to the guy who was dating her... Posted by: jk at October 14, 2005 2:14 PMThe Full Tim McCarthyPeggy Noonan offers advice to the White House today on the Harriet Miers nomination. The Administration should listen, I have heard recently of a young woman who attributes a portion of her political success to the wise counsel of Ms. Noonan. Today, in her OpinionJournal column she offers advice on how to position withdrawal. My favorite is her first: The full Tim McCarthy. He was the Secret Service agent who stood like Stonewall and took the bullet for Ronald Reagan outside the Washington Hilton. Harriet Miers can withdraw her name, take the hit, and let the president's protectors throw him in the car. Her toughness and professionalism would appear wholly admirable. She'd not just survive; she'd flourish, going from much-spoofed office wife to world-famous lawyer and world-class friend. Added side benefit: Her nobility makes her attackers look bad. She's better than they, more loyal and serious. An excellent moment of sacrifice and revenge. The Fill Tim McCarthy should enter the lexicon. It's an awesome phrase and it honors a true hero and patriot. Ms. Noonan, does not, however, address my concern, and I think it so substantive that I would dissuade Miers from withdrawal. It speaks of the left's vision of conservatism: that the entire GOP buckles when Pat Buchanan and Gary Bauer are upset. And a more conservative nominee would be pilloried with "We liked Miers! Why did they pull her and send up this extremist?" Dark days. Passed ball on third strike? No way.
Posted by John Kranz at 12:38 PM
October 10, 2005Quote of the DayTaranto at Best of the Web published letters it received in response to a post about the reaction to the Miers appointment at National Review's 50tth anniversary bash. I know I'm among the newly converted, but this made me laugh: I had to laugh at your unintentional Pauline Kael self-parody on Friday.
Posted by John Kranz at 8:51 PM
Throwing In With KristolScoot over, Sugarchuck, I'm arriving late to the party, but I'd like a drink and a couple of hors d-oeuvres if they're not all gone. I saw Mr. Kristol on FOXNews yesterday. They had taken a few minutes off discussing Aruban jurisprudence to evaluate America's and he repeated his call for Ms. Miers to withdraw, as he does on the Daily Standard website today. This was a nice riff, discussing the contretemps: But the reaction of conservatives to this deeply disheartening move by a president they otherwise support and admire has been impressive. There has been an extraordinarily energetic and vigorous debate among conservatives as to what stance to take towards the Miers nomination, a debate that does the conservative movement proud. The stern critics of the nomination have, in my admittedly biased judgment, pretty much routed the half-hearted defenders. In the vigor of their arguments, and in their willingness to speak uncomfortable truths, conservatives have shown that they remain a morally serious and intellectually credible force in American politics. I've meant all the good things I have said about Ms. Miers, and I appreciate that she has made me remember the excellent Mike Myers movie "So I Married an Axe Murderer" Not because they are both named Myers (though that's gotta be a conspiracy somehow...) but for his poem about his love: "Har-ri-et, Sweet Har-ri-et!" Putting childish things aside, Kristol is right that if the conservatives actually do stand for meritocracy, they should ensure not that they get the vote they want, but that they put the best person on the bench. I like the non-elitist, western-state nature of the pick. But like wanting a woman, you could fulfill the requirement and still do better. Kristol is also right with the solution. Ms. Miers should withdraw her nomination. The President nominated her out of loyalty, she should withdraw out of loyalty. The downside is appearance. Here's the narrative: "President Bush nominated a consensus pick that hade wide support on both sides of the aisle, but the evil right wing conspiracy said she wasn't extreme enough! And this President knuckled under." Pass me one of those canapés...
Posted by John Kranz at 12:02 PM
October 9, 2005Constitutional ClarityTwo articles to consider, and being the administration flak that I am, I can spin them into a pro-Miers post. The first is from Hillsdale College's "Imprimis" magazine. I hope everybody is reading this, subscriptions are free. This month it is George Will, last month was Stephen Markman, Justice on the Michigan Supreme Court. Justice Markman makes a great point about the Constitution: "It ain't for all dem fancy, wingtipped lawyers and perfessers" (I paraphrase a bit...). The serious point is that it's not legalese, that every literate American can understand it. And that the biggest treat to understanding might be penumbras and emanations. Myth or Misconception 5: The Constitution is a document for lawyers and judges. The second article is everybody's favorite Senator, Arlen Spector, suggesting that "Gosh durn it, that constitution stuff is purdy near impossible for some ol' Texas Gal to learn" (again, I paraphrase...) Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said President Bush's pick to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor must show she can handle complicated legal issues and has not cut deals with the White House to overturn Roe v. Wade. I rush to Ms. Miers defense in some ways as a devil's advocate. She's not an obvious choice, but there may be a lot more to this "non-elitist" meme than many of her opponents are letting on.
Posted by John Kranz at 3:39 PM
October 4, 2005Keeping an Open MindAs the WSJ opined in their lead editorial, we only seem to have President Bush's word on the Miers pick. I mentioned the "hopelessly upbeat" Hugh Hewitt as providing the positive side, but here is an even better one from The American Thinker The GOP is not the party which idolizes Ivy League acceptability as the criterion of intellectual and mental fitness. Nor does the Supreme Court ideally consist of the nine greatest legal scholars of an era. Like any small group, it is better off being able to draw on abilities of more than one type of personality. The Houston lawyer who blogs under the name of Beldar wisely points out that practicing high level law in the real world and rising to co-managing partner of a major law firm not only demonstrates a proficient mind, it provides a necessary and valuable perspective for a Supreme Court Justice, one which has sorely been lacking. I am digging the non-ivy league thing, that really is a plus. Running a business, friendly to the Executive branch, "conservative" in W's words. I am concerned but I'm not jumping in front of the train just yet on this one.
Posted by John Kranz at 6:05 PM
| Comments (9)
But Sugarchuck thinks:
Did you see the Monday night game? The one with Brett Favre berating Robert Ferguson on the sidelines for not fighting hard enough to hold onto the ball... the ball that was stripped from his hands after the completion and run back, setting up a Carolina TD. "You got to fight, you've got to fight harder!" Watching that was like watching the president's handling of the latest SCOTUS opening. People worked tirelessly for decades to get us to where we are, ... Republican president, Republican controlled sentate and two open postions on the bench. They busted their hind ends to get the ball into this presidents hands and W let the other side strip the ball from him and run the other way. He wasn't willing to fight for it.
But jk thinks:
I'll put you down for a "no," then... I am far from confident that this is a great pick. But I reject a few things that I continue to hear from the detractors. Idiocy or hubris? Running from a fight? I don't get it (well, yeah, maybe idiocy...) But I don't agree with the running from the fight sect, and by extension your fighting for the ball (I did see the game and I did see Farve's disapprobation, I thought I'd rather get hit in the ribs catching a high one up the middle than face Farve like that!) Like Emerson, I will look for the best in others. I may doubt whether this is a good pick, but don't doubt for a second that W thinks it is a great pick. Throw out "Trust W" for an argument. The best arguments I have from club Polyanna are: Your pessimism to me is betrayed by your inclusion of Chief Justice Roberts. I had my questions when that one came down, but after the Senate hearings, I am sold on our new Chief. A concern with my party is that the right wants a fight. I would have loved a good scuffle over Janice Rodgers Brown as much as anybody, but if a constructionist gets on the bench with Leader Reid's blessing, we can get on to other items. I agree that the Democrats will rue the day they let "church lady" through and, yes, she is a vote and not a leader. Neither of those depresses me that much.
But Sugarchuck thinks:
Let me ask you this...what did you hear from Mr. Roberts that leads you to think he won't be another Souter. What did he say that set you at ease. I didn't hear a thing. Is he brilliant? Yes. Is he qualified to be on the court? Yes. Was it fun watching him reduce Biden to rubble? Of course. Should Bush have picked him? I don't know. The fact is, Alan Dershowitz is samrt and facile and qualified to be on the Supreme court but I wouldn't have wanted Bush to nominate him. If you are right and Bush truly believes he put up the best nominee in Ms. Miers then Bush's critics are right and he shouldn't be president. If I am right and he chose to back down from a fight he should have been preparing for prior to his first inauguration then he is a weasel and he has betrayed a large number of the folks that got him elected in the first place. I've put up with record spending and compasionate conservatism and Republican Lite all in the hopes that he would get this one thing right and he has blown it. I don't fault him for Katrina or 9/11 aftermath or any of the other things that have been dropped in his lap but this, along with his signature on McCain Fiengold, suggests he doesn't take the court seriously. Posted by: Sugarchuck at October 6, 2005 3:07 PM
But jk thinks:
You know how to hurt a guy. Signing McCain-Feingold is one of the worst things President Bush has done. And, yes, it's a clear abdication of his Constitutional responsibility. What did I see from (now Chief Justice) Roberts? Exactly what we're not seeing today from Ms. Miers. A man who belonged on the court for his skill and intellect (like, say, Robert Bork). Safe to say, I'll trust the President on his ideology. I don't know what happened with Blackmun, but those who bring up Souter forget that Bush pere took his eye of the ball and trusted John Sununu. I do trust Bush file not to do that. Maybe an O’Connor, maybe a Kennedy, not a Souter. I have also had to trust others. I don't know Chief Justice Roberts but I liked what I saw (Biden-abuse!) and I liked even better what I read on PowerLine and other lawyerly blogs. The PowerLine guys know more than I do and are less interested in another Souter than I am.
But johngalt thinks:
The truly lamentable fact is that the Supreme Court, like so many modern institutions, has forgotten the primary guiding principle this nation was founded upon - Liberty for all. The purpose of the Constitution is to limit government's intrusion upon the rights of the people. The Supreme Court, as final arbiter of the Constitution's principles, should hold an individual's freedom from government coercion as its highest principle. Federalism is a valuable concept, but upholding it cannot be allowed to trump liberty. JK takes solace in the estimation that Miers is a "pretty certain vote against Roe." Reversal of Roe is an example of the government infringement upon liberty that I'm referring to. But I take no solace in the fact that, despite this estimation, anti-Roe conservative luminaries such as Robert Bork, Ann Coulter and Sugarchuck consider Miers' nomination a "complete disaster." She is still "the church lady." The Supreme Court was never meant to function as a "jury of our peers." The court was to enforce the Constitution's restrictions upon the government. Its justices were presumed to be ever loyal to the Constitution they swore an oath of allegiance to. But when politically motivated presidents promote command-economy liberals and science-phobic theists to the court, that court eventually devolves into a mini-legislature with its members casting ideological votes rather than rendering objective judgments. It is a case of Left vs. Right vs. Liberty. Posted by: johngalt at October 10, 2005 12:53 AM
But Silence Dogood thinks:
Very nicely put johngalt. Posted by: Silence Dogood at October 10, 2005 10:25 AMOctober 3, 2005Weekly Standard Editors SplitWilliam Kristol is Disappointed, Depressed and Demoralized by the Miers nomination: I'm demoralized. What does this say about the next three years of the Bush administration--leaving aside for a moment the future of the Court? Surely this is a pick from weakness. Is the administration more broadly so weak? What are the prospects for a strong Bush second term? What are the prospects for holding solid GOP majorities in Congress in 2006 if conservatives are demoralized? And what elected officials will step forward to begin to lay the groundwork for conservative leadership after Bush? His colleague, Fred Barnes, is -- by comparison -- dancing in the aisles! So why did Bush choose Miers? For him, these nominations are quite personal. He wants to feel comfortable with his nominee, confident his pick will be a conservative now and conservative 20 years from now. Bush picked Roberts after being impressed while interviewing him. His doubts were erased (and there were initial doubts about Roberts). My guess is with Miers his doubts were washed away too. Call me circumspectly optimistic...
Posted by John Kranz at 6:33 PM
| Comments (1)
But Sugarchuck thinks:
I am throwing in with Kristol. As to why I don't trust Bush on this or the Roberts nomination see depressing GOP facts below. W has it right on defense and that is good enough... I guess. It's all we have for now. Miers as Derek JeterQuick! Read this before Senator Biden tries to abscond with this analogy. "The Anchoress" advises readers to "cool their jets" on the Miers nomination. On that I must agree. Then she plays her baseball analogy: Derek Jeter's intangible assets: He’s been the Yankee Shortstop for ten years - he has tremendous heart, a baseball IQ that is off the charts, two things that are both intangible and invaluable, and yet his whole career he has never been called “the best shortstop playing…” by people who spend all of their time memorizing stats and looking at box scores to tell them “the whole story.” And yet, Jeter is proof that checking off stats in a column can never give you a complete picture of a player and what they bring to the game. The Anchoress thinks President Bush, knowing her well, may have seen some of these intangibles in Ms. Miers. Like Hugh Hewitt, I have learned to trust the President on the big things. While I am very concerned, I am going to give this some time before I see "Souter in a Dress."
Posted by John Kranz at 3:16 PM
SCOTUS Nominee #2 TodayLooks like the President will announce his second choice today. And the Democrats are promising a fight. So let's do it. Borkborkborkborkborkborkborkborkborkborkborkborkborkbork.
Posted by AlexC at 7:00 AM
| Comments (2)
But jk thinks:
The blogosphere roundup of Meirs on Instapundit is not good. I heard a lot of negative thoughts on Roberts and have been quite pleased. Perhaps, President Bush knows something that others do not, and perhaps he is selling all of his supporters down the river... Posted by: jk at October 3, 2005 11:38 AM
But AlexC thinks:
I was in Jury Duty today (my first!) http://pstupidonymous.blogspot.com/2005/10/jury-dooty.html so I didn't have time to look around... but on the drive home, Michael Medved was very up on her. Especially as an "original intent" Constitutionalist. Where's the fight though? F*ck. I was promised "some spending of political capital"... Where's Luttig? Janice Rogers Brown? Do we know she's a good conservative? I don't know. She teaches sunday school at a "fundamentalist" church. We'll see. The Judiciary isn't really my beat. I'll leave it to the experts. Posted by: AlexC at October 3, 2005 4:22 PMSeptember 29, 2005Hail, Chief Justice Roberts!The Wall Street Journal reports that he has been confirmed 78-22. I like to win as much as the next guy, but am I the only one bothered that Justice Ginsberg got 93 votes, and John Roberts 78? I guess it will not matter to the Chief Justice, as long as he was confirmed, but I am disturbed that 22 Senators think a well qualified person should be kept from the bench because they don't agree with some aspect of his or her politics. Among the Senate's Democrats, 22 opposed the nomination, saying the candidate could turn out to be as conservative as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court anchors on the right. Sorry Senator. Elections matter.
Posted by John Kranz at 12:32 PM
| Comments (2)
But johngalt thinks:
Kennedy had more than that to say. From: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00245 "And try as I might, I cannot find the evidence to conclude that John Roberts understands the real world impact of court decisions on civil rights and equal rights in this country. And I cannot find the evidence to conclude that a Chief Justice John Roberts would be the kind of inspirational leader who would use his powers of persuasion to bring all the Court along on America's continued march of progress. Therefore, I do not believe that John Roberts has met the burden of proof necessary to be confirmed by the Senate as Chief Justice of the United States." What part of the Constitution compels the Supreme Court to consider "the real world impact of court decisions?" That's like saying the "real world" impact of the Constitution should have some bearing on whether or not we abide by it. He is pledging loyalty to only those parts of the Constitution with which he agrees - such parts as are supportive of (or at least, not hostile to) "civil rights and equal rights in this country." I'm quite certain that the oath taken by the senator from Massachusetts was quite different from this. Kennedy adds, "Both in committee and on the floor, some have argued that those of us who oppose John Roberts's nomination are trying to force a nominee to adopt our "partisan" positions, to support our "causes," to yield to our "special interest" agendas. But progress towards a freer, fairer nation where "justice for all' is a reality -- not just a pledge in the Constitution -- is not a personal "cause," or a "special interest," or a "partisan" philosophy or ideology or agenda." But Kennedy's notion of "fairer" is the antithesis of "freer." If one individual is prevented from keeping all of the fruits of his labors because it isn't "fair" to other, less industrious individuals, then freedom is in descendence. This is what Kennedy means by "justice for all," in direct contradiction to what the founders established. Posted by: johngalt at September 29, 2005 2:51 PM
But jk thinks:
When I say I expected better, I must confess I didn't mean Senator Kennedy. I could see as many as ten nay votes, but 22 surprises. Bayh, Feinstein and Clinton surprise. Posted by: jk at September 29, 2005 5:48 PMSeptember 23, 200518-0WSJ Ed Page: That was the vote count when the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmed Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer in the 1990s, and it should have been the vote for John Roberts yesterday, instead of 13-5. The two Bill Clinton appointees are every bit as liberal as Judge Roberts is conservative, and they were just as unforthcoming during their confirmation hearings on how they would vote on specific cases. I'm happy that the Roberts confirmation looks good. But my rightwing nutjob friends are right. There is ZERO legitimate reason to vote against Judge Roberts; the comparisons with Ginsberg make the Democrats look very bad. It is lucky for them that the media won't point this out to anybody. UPDATE: I loved John Hinerocker's comment on Powerline: This may be the most bone-headed statement of the year. I want to go back to the Ruth Ginsburg confirmation hearing and find where the Republican Senators asked her what kind of a mother she is. The feminists would have loved that! Indeed.
Posted by John Kranz at 11:39 AM
September 13, 2005Jonah!In the Corner, Jonah Golberg nails Senator Joe Biden: The man loves his voice so much, you'd expect him to be following it around in a grey Buick, in defiance of restraining order, as it walks home from school.
Posted by John Kranz at 5:51 PM
September 5, 2005Now THAT'S FunnyI got beat up when I linked to what I thought to be a serious Scrappleface post. Here's hoping y'all will like this better: "When Sandra Day O'Connor retired, we insisted Bush appoint a centrist to replace her and maintain the balance on the court," said one unnamed Senator. "Now, we demand that the president name a right-wing, conservative, originalist to replace Rehnquist for that same reason." Hat-tip: Insty
Posted by John Kranz at 1:01 PM
| Comments (1)
But Silence Dogood thinks:
I can't imagine why that senator would want to remain anonymous with such great insights... Posted by: Silence Dogood at September 6, 2005 4:20 PMSeptember 4, 2005Requiescat In Pace IIAtilla at Pillage Idiot speaks to Cheif Justice Rehnquist's determination and courage. It's easy to forget how liberal the court he joined was. But those of us who were in law school when Rehnquist was only an Associate Justice have a more vivid memory of him as a principled and lonely defender of an approach to law that had been all but turned on its head during the Warren Court. Rehnquist got the nickname "Lone Ranger" by filing solo dissents and refusing to go along with much of the legal doctrine then prevailing. (It goes almost without saying that Rehnquist was the target of a disproportionate number of barbs in the law school show, a comedy written by students. Students today have a larger number of targets.) UPDATE: Taranto does a Sunday Best Of The Web, including a transcript of Alan Dershowitz's interview discussed in the comments below.
Posted by John Kranz at 7:40 PM
| Comments (3)
But AlexC thinks:
Alan Dershowitz said some nice things.
But johngalt thinks:
As for Dershowitz, no one can have a higher opinion of him than me, and I think he's a filthy little beast. Posted by: johngalt at September 5, 2005 12:37 AM
But jk thinks:
Like Krugman, one has to view Dershowitz as a warning against hyper-partisanism. I read a collection of his "Taking Liberties" essays a long time ago and was enlightened by some of his ideas and elevated opinion of several organizations based on his brilliant exposition. Sadly, he has become not only a partisan hack, but has truly lost all reason. I think it happened during the Clinton impeachment contretemps, but I'll accept evidence that it happened sooner. Yet both he and Krugman were once smart guys and serious thinkers. I am glad that I am STARTING life as a partisan hack, so I don't have to worry... Requiescat In PacePaul at Power Line does a better job than I could: Chief Justice Rehnquist graced the Court for three and a half decades. I'm not sure that any Justice in our history has written as many good opinions. And even those who didn't like his opinions will remember him for his gentlemanly demeanor and excellent scholarship. Put Michael Luttig on the court and elevate Clarence Thomas to Chief Justice.
Posted by John Kranz at 12:35 PM
| Comments (4)
But johngalt thinks:
Rehnquist knew right from wrong, and he didn't have to attend Washington dinner parties to figure out where he "should" stand on a given case. He will be missed. I expect the president will promote Scalia to Chief, and I'm pulling for Janice Rogers Brown to fill the new vacancy. Posted by: johngalt at September 5, 2005 12:36 AM
But AlexC thinks:
I would have figured Thomas or Scalia to Chief Justice. Whoda thunk Roberts? Maybe Karl Rove? ;) Posted by: AlexC at September 5, 2005 11:36 AM
But johngalt thinks:
Media correspondents were discussing this scenario yesterday. I thought Scalia would get the nod over Thomas partially due to seniority. Now the most junior justice of all is being nominated as chief. I'm no fan of "social promotion" as it were, but it certainly seems that the leader of the court should be someone who's actually BEEN there for a while. And the lack of consideration for the service of those conservative justices already on the bench is curious. As I understand it, the Senate has a role in confirming the elevation of a justice to Chief, so this move reduces the number of rings in the Senate circus by one. Still, I doubt this was the primary motivation for the president. It may be to stack the court for short-term rulings on cases soon to come before the court. If he doesn't nominate a replacement for O'Connor soon then this theory will gain credence. Posted by: johngalt at September 5, 2005 12:55 PM
But jk thinks:
I heard chatter about this too. I thought "no way" but I picked the Broncos over the 49ers in Super Bowl XXIV. I thought Thomas the natural choice because 1) he's jk's -- and many other conservatives' -- favorite after Raich v Ashcroft; 2) he has more than a decade on the Court; and 3) Democrats would be forced to scuttle the appointment of the first African-American Chief Justice. I like to trust the President on the big things, but this concerns me. I trust Roberts is a good conservative jurist enough to support his nomination as Associate Justice, not quite onboard for this leapfrog appointment. I will try to keep an open mind. August 23, 2005Sarcasm AlertJudge John Roberts cracks me up. Here's why.
Tip to Chappy who writes... If the Post recognizes the sarcasm dripping off the page of this note they do not note it. Instead, they report it as straightforward, which I doubt it is.
Posted by AlexC at 1:00 PM
August 17, 2005YawnLeahy Lambastes Roberts' 'Radical' Stands WASHINGTON - Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record) says Supreme Court nominee John Roberts holds "radical" views and has been an "eager, aggressive advocate" for policies of the far right.It's true y'know. Senators Leahy and Kennedy have seen evidence in the 5000 pages that Roberts: In material released Monday, Roberts emerged as an attorney serving in the Reagan White House who held views generally in line with those of other conservatives. He was sympathetic to prayer in public schools, dismissive of "comparable worth," referred to the "tragedy of abortion" and took a swipe at the Supreme Court for being too willing to hear multiple appeals from death row inmates.What a troglodyte! How insanely ideological can one guy be? How far out of the mainstream? I would laugh if I weren't certain that the MSM will take these comments seriously. UPDATE: The WSJ Ed Page weighs in: It's no news flash that organizations like the Alliance for Justice, People for the American Way and MoveOn.org are influencing Democrats' attack on Judge Roberts. But the rapidity with which Senators Pat Leahy and Ted Kennedy jumped this week to follow the groups' orders is nonetheless remarkable, and politically revealing.
Posted by John Kranz at 1:49 PM
| Comments (4)
But Silence Dogood thinks:
The only thing I know he has taken back in time is fashion. Did you see the photos of his family at his announcement at the White House? I thought at first that the caption must be wrong, that the photo was actually of a 5 year old Judge Roberts 40 years ago not of his son current day. An Eton suit and saddle shoes? Yikes. Posted by: Silence Dogood at August 18, 2005 1:10 PM
But jk thinks:
Silence, I think you should take over as ThreeSources Fashion Editor. I'd have never recognized an Eton Suit. Posted by: jk at August 18, 2005 3:53 PM
But Silence Dogood thinks:
Yes, fashion deity that I am. Truthfully I had to do a Google search on "suit with short pants" to find the name. They did go out of style about 1960 and some say that now more are sold in doll sizes as no 5 year old will consent to wear one. Just injecting a little pithiness really, not sure there is any big cultural insight into the man based on how his family dresses, but just as some here have talked about the "dirty hippies" you gotta wonder about a guy whose family dresses straight out of 1955. Posted by: Silence Dogood at August 18, 2005 5:20 PM
But AlexC thinks:
I don't think I coined "dirty hippies" but I love using it. The difference between the Roberts family and the dirty hippies, is that in a social setting you probably wouldn't be offended by the fetid odor and grooming skills of the Roberts. Yeah, the clothes are a little, ahem, "classic." But they're clean, pressed and acceptable. Dirty Hippies, on the other hand, if you can cut through the stench, you still have to contend with the tofu crumbs and bong water stains. :) Posted by: AlexC at August 18, 2005 5:30 PMAugust 15, 2005Elections Don't MatterNot to TNR. The smartest lefty read in the country still has its share of partisan hacks. I was surprised, reading T.A. Franks's "What the NARAL Ad Got Right." In other words, NARAL, which had been trying to play as sleazy as its opponents, stepped in it. But, instead of jumping on them, let's give them an "A" for effort. At least they stayed awake at a time when many of us were asleep. No. We do not expect the TNR to approve of Roberts's jurisprudence. No more than the Weekly Standard digs Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsberg's. But President Clinton won two elections and got to appoint two justices. National Review did not get a veto, nor does TNR get one today. The best reason for President Bush to get his judges is still "elections matter." Nowhere is it mentioned in the article that perhaps the President can appoint a conservative. The real problem, as usual, is that lefties are too nice: Liberals feel queasy about going after Roberts because they think that the alternative might be someone even farther to the right of Roberts. This may be the case. Either way, however, they have little to lose from promoting the notion of Roberts as a hard-right warrior. Done right, it makes them look moderate and the GOP look extreme--which, these days, it is. NARAL's TV ad, then, was a good thought. Unfortunately, its blatant griminess would have made legitimate accusations against Roberts look equally dubious.
Posted by John Kranz at 12:46 PM
August 11, 2005Barone on the NARAL AdOr as he calls it: the Disgraceful NARAL ad. Today he takes no prisoners. In my experience as a Democratic campaign consultant from 1974 to 1981, our clients were careful to put up ads that were factually correct and readily defensible. They did that because they thought it was the right thing to do and because a false ad could boomerang and end up costing them votes. If I'm right about the mindset of the NARAL people, they and their consultants don't share this view. Perhaps they believe that mainstream media will leave their ad unchallenged. But even the New York Times notes, in the 11th paragraph of a story on the subject, factcheck.org's conclusion. "But even the New York Times notes..." I am so glad Barone is blogging. That is a gift.
Posted by John Kranz at 5:13 PM
August 9, 200512,000 VotesFrom the NYTimes...
[...]
He said he was particularly upset that the court, under Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, had questioned lawmakers' "method of reasoning" in striking down laws. "Well, that's just another way of saying Congress is incompetent," Mr. Specter said, adding, "I'm not suggesting we pack the court, but at a minimum, the Senate is determined to confirm new justices who respect their role." Democrats and liberal advocacy groups, caught off guard by Mr. Specter's letter, were elated. "Arlen Specter sounds exactly like Chuck Schumer," said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and a member of the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Schumer said that he viewed the letter as "a vindication of the campaign I've been waging" to have the nominee answer detailed questions about cases. 12,000 more votes would have saved Pennsylvania, and the country from having two Chuck Schumers in the Senate. (tip to Instapundit)
Posted by AlexC at 12:40 AM
| Comments (4)
But sugarchuck thinks:
Arlen Specter was, is and always will be a disaster. It would have been better to have lost his seat in the Senate than have him in the position he is in now. It is a shame that Bush lent support to this knucklehead and that support will come back to haunt him. Of course when Roberts turns out to be another Souter we might well wish Specter had been able to derail him. Posted by: sugarchuck at August 9, 2005 10:41 AM
But jk thinks:
I am still stumped that the Administration supported Specter in the primary. I think he must've had pictures of W freebasing with Rick James or something -- it was clearly not in the President's interest. I must protest the Roberts pessimism, I trust President Bush on the big things, and this is a big thing. If it makes you feel better, NARAL is spouting scurrilous lies about Judge Roberts http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011289.php Posted by: jk at August 9, 2005 1:25 PM
But AlexC thinks:
Hence the 12,000 vote mention... that's how close Pat Toomey was to taking down the Senator in the primary. Sadly Bush and Santorum went for party over principle.
But jk thinks:
... and got neither. Posted by: jk at August 9, 2005 3:11 PMJuly 26, 2005Roberts Requests
The soon to be released documents will come from the National Archives and Records Administration and the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say, "They're not going to read it all." Chappy adds...
*sigh*
Posted by AlexC at 6:00 PM
July 25, 2005Hard to PleaseA free copy of OpinionJournal's Political Diary is offered in lieu of Best of the Web today. It seems Anita Hill is not too wild about this nominee either. "We don't know much about Roberts' political ideology, but we do know that his career has been built on membership in increasingly elitist institutions that include few women and Latinos or other ethnic minorities... Had these 'extraordinary' credentials set the standard for judicial nominations in 1982, Sandra Day O'Connor would never have been appointed. She never clerked. She never worked for a president. She never served as a federal judge" -- Brandeis University Prof. Anita Hill, writing in Newsday.
Posted by John Kranz at 4:35 PM
Hotel SouterFrom Chicago Sun-Times
''We would act just as these cities have been acting in seizing properties. We would give Souter the same sort of deal,'' said Logan Darrow Clements of Los Angeles. Town Clerk Evelyn Connor has had to return checks from people wishing to donate to a hotel construction fund. A rival proposal from townspeople would turn Souter's land into a park commemorating the Constitution. It's refreshing that even the townspeople are behind some sort of a "punitive" action. That's really the key support. Outsiders horsing around would never fly. But Justice Souter is not without his defenders.
''I think it's absolutely ridiculous,'' she said. ''They're just doing it for spite.'' Boy, they're really going deep if all they can quote is his sixth-grade teacher. Live Free or Die State... I love it!
Posted by AlexC at 11:00 AM
Good News on RobertsSenator Ted Kennedy says he "threatens 'Social Security, Medicare, the minimum wage' and the environment." The Wall Street Journal Editorial page asks "Is that all?" I respect the opinion of Charles Krauthammer and other serious conservatives who worry about another Souter. Again, I am pretty sanguine thanks to the much larger number of also serious conservatives who support his nomination. But I am most calmed by the words of the Senior Senator from Massachusetts. "I can imagine few things worse for our seniors, for the disabled, for workers and for families than to place someone on the highest court in the land who would put these protections at risk." Yup. Now I feel better!
Posted by John Kranz at 10:53 AM
July 24, 2005SouteronomyA great word, seemingly coined by Power Line The question is: was Souter a liberal, or did he "grow" in office? Michael Barone writes in to comment that Souter let Lawrence Tribe pick his clerks (not an auspicious sign). Barone further suggests that today's justices have too many clerks and that there would be more comity and fewer split opinions without them ("First, Kill all the Clerks," Shakespeare said!) Barone underscores Roberts's possible immunity from Souteronomy: As for Justice Roberts, he seems clearly to be a man who will not be moved away from his convictions by his clerks. This, even though his opinions and the accounts of him by those who have worked with him indicate that he pays respectful attention to those who disagree with him. In reading his opinions, I have been struck by how carefully and fairly he presents arguments for the positions with which he disagrees. This is not a guy who is going to come out the way I would like in every case. But it does seem to be a guy who will come out the way he would like in every case -- and is not going to be buffaloed by Professor Tribe's hand-picked law clerks any more than he is buffaloed by Professor Tribe. I'm really not jealous of other blogs' hit stats or ad rates, but if I could get Michael Barone to write in one day with comments...
Posted by John Kranz at 6:38 PM
July 22, 2005Kristol on RobertsThe Weekly Standard has been very supportive of the President, yet unafraid to attack (well, nooge) him from the right. While Fred Barnes and William Kristol were both hoping for a fierce conservative in the Scalia-Thomas-Bork mold, today's editorial by Kristol makes a good point. It Takes an Establishment. He points out that radicals are needed for change yet establishments are required to govern. Kristol thinks Bush is pursuing a long-term vision of the court with the Roberts nomination as an establishmentarian. Roberts is no Bork, no Scalia, and no Thomas. He's probably more like the man for whom he clerked, Chief Justice Rehnquist--or the man Rehnquist replaced, John Marshall Harlan. A court with, so to speak, five Scalias would be fun. But it won't happen. A court with a majority made up of some Scalia-Thomas types and some Rehnquist-Harlan types is possible. Indeed, with his choice of John Roberts, President Bush has begun to create such a court, one heading towards a constitutionalist majority. The piece ends with some kind words from a liberal lawyer who mentored under Roberts at a law firm. "So I have nothing but a profound sense of respect for John Roberts: for his integrity, his intelligence, his humility, and his genuine human decency. Man when he says it like that... Also, consider this bit of wisdom: Let's not lose sight of this, either: Merit is a conservative principle. Selecting a first-class nominee, and refusing to bend to political expediency, is a conservative act. In this respect, the nomination of Roberts sends a signal that Bush understands the Court matters, and that on things that matter, he will rise to the occasion and scorn identity politics. Color jk still cautiously optimistic...
Posted by John Kranz at 11:30 AM
July 20, 2005'Nother Souter?I hear that Anne Coulter is concerned; I am more worried about a couple of good friends. (Maybe they're on the Karl Rove payroll and are pushing AlexC's "too moderate" meme...) I like what I am seeing in the blogosphere. Power Line was positive on him before the nomination, Scott makes trenchant rebuttals of Coulter's complaints -- and John says "Pop the corks!" JOHN adds: Pop the champagne corks, conservatives. Roberts is a fantastic choice, a brilliant and bulletproof conservative. And it was fun to see Pat Leahy and Chuck Schumer on television tonight; they looked just awful. Glenn seems upbeat, and links to BeldarBlog's Why I'm not worried that Judge John G. Roberts will become "another Souter" Thus, through people like former Solicitor General Ken Starr (and, perhaps, Chief Justice Rehnquist?) with whom John Roberts has worked very closely, and through privileged documents that Judge Roberts must have written himself while a government lawyer, Dubya and his staff certainly know vastly more about Judge Roberts' character and core beliefs than, for example, Poppy Bush ever could have known about David Souter or than the Gipper ever could have known about Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy. Instead, Dubya and his staff have the same kind of first-hand, pertinent, and highly reliable knowledge about John Roberts that Richard Nixon and his staff had about William Rehnquist. And that worked out pretty well over time, didn't it? I saw Judge Starr on FOXNews and MSNBC last night.. He was telling the lefties not to worry about Roberts. I'm not sure he was the right messenger for the left -- but it did comfort me. To my friends, I will echo Beldar. This President can mess up the little things. But he tends to get the big things right. And I am betting that he did his homework on this one.
Posted by John Kranz at 3:12 PM
SCOTUS Reverse Psychology
It sounds like fellow blonde right-wing babe Ann Coulter got the message.
Or did she?
Posted by AlexC at 12:00 PM
| Comments (1)
But jk thinks:
It ain't necessarily faked. I received an extremely downbeat email this morning that imagined if Senators Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton were not in full apoplexy, then W has obviously picked another Souter. I gave a sanguine reply. I like what I have heard, and I fully suspect that the Democrats have a careful plan to act nice and thoughtful (Schumer was really trying, if you can believe it). Then when something is disclosed, or a question is not answered, they will spring into life. It is odd that a person would not make a public and clear position on Roe v Wade. That might be a sign of wobbliness or it might really be good politics. July 19, 2005Clement for the CourtLooks like the nominee will be 5th Circuit Court judge Edith Clement. I would have figured she would have been at least officially announced before the attacks began, but it was not to be. On the radio this morning, I already heard George Stephanopoulous, the impartial ABC commentator, say "she has no paper trail." Listen for that meme in the future, if she is the nominee. Confirmed 99-0 four years ago, btw.
Posted by AlexC at 11:45 AM
| Comments (5)
But johngalt thinks:
A number of pro-life pundits are calling Clement a "surrender" nominee, (to Senate Dems). This largely for her statement that the abortion issue is "decided law." Limbaugh's not so certain that she's "pro-Roe" as her statement was that of a district judge with no ability to alter that law. Not knowing any more than this about her I can only say, at least she's not certifiably pro-life as many Bush backers have been demanding. There's a good chance that, as I learn more about her, I won't prefer to see her go down in flames. So far, so good Mr. Prez. Posted by: johngalt at July 19, 2005 3:03 PM
But jk thinks:
So, jg, You'd be happy seeing Justice Scalia or Thomas "Go down in flames" were there confirmation hearings happening at this time?
But AlexC thinks:
Uh. I guess we're wrong. Karl Rove is a genius! Posted by: AlexC at July 19, 2005 10:12 PM
But johngalt thinks:
No, I don't consider Scalia or Thomas to be anti-Roe activists. Edith Jones, on the other hand... And AlexC... What do you mean "we," white man! Posted by: johngalt at July 19, 2005 11:48 PM
But johngalt thinks:
Oh yes, and as far as I can tell at this point, Roberts is a good choice as well. Not that I don't believe he disagrees with Roe, but I don't believe he considers it his mission in life to "reverse" it, somehow. Posted by: johngalt at July 19, 2005 11:53 PMJuly 16, 2005Eminent DomainThe Kelo decision is going to affect a lot of cities negatively if this kind of attitude doesn't change.
Now, as then, the Clearkin company specializes in schools and churches, mostly Catholic ones. It still employs about 45 people. In the last decade, it has paid more than $400,000 in city taxes. But unlike some Philadelphia businesses, Clearkin has no complaint with the assessment. The family would be glad to keep sending their tax checks downtown. [...]
Philadelphia is notorious for fleeing residents and fleeing companies because of the high tax environment. Now they're chasing them out! If I were a politician looking to break into local politics, be it city, township or county, I would run on a "no eminent domain" kind of platform. No houses for offices... no companies for houses... roads, parks, maybe... but the city has to pay. I'm still waiting for the WalMart pushing out a Planned Parenthood. That would change a lot of attitudes.
Posted by AlexC at 9:00 PM
| Comments (2)
But jk thinks:
Hmm, wonder if there are any young guys in the Philadelphia area who might be tempted to enter politics... What I like is the legislative solution. While we all wish they had defended property rights better, courts cannot force a municipality to take property.
But johngalt thinks:
I don't think you understand AlexC. Planned Parenthood is a "good" civic citizen. A profit making business that builds Catholic schools and churches is a scourge on urbanism. 'Kelo' gives free rein to local governments to boot out anyone they have a grudge against, or who doesn't pay the "protection" fee under the table, as long as it can gin up some higher-revenue possible use for the acreage they occupy. Anti-American to the extreme. Posted by: johngalt at July 18, 2005 3:30 PMJuly 14, 2005SCOTUS Does One Right?It deosn't make up for Raich and Kelo, but the WSJ Ed page applauds a decision from the high court -- and even credits it with A Brand X Bump? Between 2000 and 2004, nearly $2 trillion in telecom market capitalization dried up, and some 70 publicly traded telecom companies filed for Chapter 11 protection. So it's not irrational to think that last month's Brand X decision from the High Court -- which upheld last year's pro-market Federal Communications Commission ruling that local cable companies aren't required to share their broadband networks with competing Internet service providers -- has had something to do with reawakening the telecom sector. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's subsequent comments in these pages that the ruling paves the way for still more deregulation in telecommunications has no doubt also helped stir investors' animal spirits
Posted by John Kranz at 2:10 PM
July 8, 2005Excusing MurderWith eminent domain and the strange Decalouge ruling, as well as retirements dominating the headlines, another SCOTUS ruling slid in under the radar.
Scanlon was not the first victim of Rompilla's murderous impulses. At sentencing, the prosecution offered his "significant history of felony convictions involving the use or threat of violence..." as an aggravating factor in justifying a death sentence, including the 1974 robbery, slashing, mutilation and rape at knifepoint of a female tavern owner. Seems pretty open and shut. This animal has been a mess for a long time. Society is better served by meteing out the ultimate penalty, as he obviously doesn't "get it." But it's not. His execution was overturned.
Next, Justice Souter anoints these purported "mitigating factors" with a weight far disproportionate to their relevance. A guilty verdict establishes beyond reasonable doubt the degree of culpability underlying a crime. Once guilt is established, it's a fair question to ask why further investigation is necessary. Sentencing is a time for accountability, not for excuses about someone's "childhood, mental capacity and health, and alcoholism." It is the time when equal justice under the law is meted out to men who are created equal. Turning this constitutional principle on its head, Justice Souter suggests that justice demands that the Rompillas of the world be less accountable for their conduct than those from good homes, good schools and supportive parents. Furthermore, with fewer "mitigating factors" in their backgrounds, his skewed logic suggests that the "privileged" are more deserving of death sentences for capital crimes than their less-fortunate brethren. Unbelieveable.
Posted by AlexC at 10:00 AM
| Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:
Absolutely proper evaluation, AlexC. Even in this "anything goes" climate of post-modern relativism, this IS unbelieveable. Souter is a cancer on the US Constitution. Posted by: johngalt at July 8, 2005 3:10 PMJuly 7, 2005Americans' Most Sacred RightIt's not free speech. The Federal Election Commission has asserted that it can regulate this partisan blog under the purview of Campaign Finance Reform. I guess the First Amendment works pretty well for pornographers but Americans ceded their rights to free speech with McCain-Feingold, and it was upheld by SCOTUS in McConnell It sure ain't bearing arms. Though clearly enumerated as a distinct right in the Second Amendment, The municipalities of San Francisco, New York, and Washington D.C. have instituted de facto bans on gun ownership. Cruel and Inhuman punishment? Brutal, violent, homosexual rape is so commonplace in our nation's prisons that it is a staple of TV and Film comedy. Capital punishment is permitted by many states; some on the right and left feel that violates the Fourth Amendment. Search and seizure? I can be pulled over if my seat belt is not fastened or if I do not wear a motorcycle helmet, and with probable cause, my vehicle can be searched. There's not too much quartering of soldiers in wartime, but I think we outgrew that. The only real sacred right is to an abortion. I can wait three days for a gun license, but we can't make a young woman wait 24 hours. A 17 year old cannot buy a gun, but a 13 year old must be granted access to abortions without parental consent. I cannot erect an awning to shield my car without a permit but the city could not use zoning to move or disallow an abortion clinic. The mere suggestion of parental notification or moderate regulations on when or what procedures may be used is a violation of our sacred reproductive rights. If it's to be the last right we get to keep, I'm sorry I am anatomically unempowered to take advantage of it. ------------------------------------------------------------------- That's the rant. The serious side, if I may, is to try and get a better handle on the Supreme Court as we discuss nominees' fitness for the bench. Johngalt makes an eloquent case that: "There is no 'right to abortion' but there is the right to be 'secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects...' From the right to personal security the right to self-determination of all aspects of one's physical body is Constitutionally guaranteed against any and all interference by the state or by Congress.” By this standard, we can extend this right to husband and father a plethora of new rights. Surely my soapbox of FDA infringement on the sale of pharmaceuticals is now unconstitutional. The government is withholding products from the marketplace that I will die without. That seems a lot more defensible than a right to abortion. And with that right firmly ensconced, surely I have he right to smoke crack and so does my 17 year old son, nine year old daughter, &c. The problem with the "newfound rights" (some of which I'd support fulsomely) is that, like Roe v Wade, they remove a State or locality's right to self-determination. Once everything is a Federal right, we can close up all of our local governments and their agencies -- and these are the only places that individuals have any real power. Sorry gang, but while I am a squishy-moderate supporter of legal abortions, I cannot envision a good judge who would not strike down Roe v. Wade.
Posted by John Kranz at 10:56 AM
| Comments (12)
But jk thinks:
That's exactly my point, Silence. There is no enumerated right to abortion in the Constitution, therefore it should be left to the States to decide. States could legally regulate, outlaw or permit abortion, but SCOTUS has used the precedent of Roe to strike down state laws on parental notification and will likely disallow the partial-birth (D&X) ban. Back to my original -- if highly sarcastic -- point, how are states and municipalities allowed to infringe so blatantly on the clearly enumerated right to bear arms? San Francisco can remove this right from its citizenry, yet Nebraska cannot institute a parental notification law. I seriously do not understand this.
But johngalt thinks:
Sure you understand it JK. "The constituency that defends that particular liberty is the very one that is so eager to infringe on MOST of the others." And, the constituency that wants to infringe on this one is impotent to stop those infringements because infringing upon individual liberties is one of their prime directives as well. But because you understand it doesn't mean you have to accept it. The thing is, two wrongs don't make right. The one thing Silence and I still can't abide is your Federalism argument in defense of infringement upon an individual liberty granted, in blanket fashion, by the fourth amendment. Posted by: johngalt at July 10, 2005 10:04 AM
But jk thinks:
It's the emanations & penumbras part of your "right" that disturbs me. The right to bear arms is clearly stated, the right to abortion is a made-up right based on a made-up privacy right. So I say, let the Supreme Court defend the clearly enumerated rights and leave everything else, per the Tenth Amendment to the States. Posted by: jk at July 10, 2005 3:00 PM
But johngalt thinks:
I'll stipulate this right is an emanation, but not a penumbra. The right to freedom from unreasonable searches of one's body emanates from the Fourth Amendment right "to be secure in their persons" because it doesn't say "to be secure in their bodies." Not much of a stretch there, is it? ("Unreasonable" meaning without probable cause that a crime against another's person or property is being committed. HERE'S where the real dispute lies.) This would only be a penumbra if this right to bodily security was somehow to a lesser or uncertain degree. But the right is absolute. Individual liberty is sacrosanct. The real dispute in the case of abortion is whether an unborn fetus has an individual right to liberty himself. I've consistently maintained that one must first be "individual" to have individual rights. This is the only position that is fully defensible. The Christo-fascists, among others, argue that everyone has equal rights whether they're strong or weak, good or evil, born or unborn, or even merely a zygote. This position is far from defensible. When you consider how the concept of "right" has been manipulated by collectivists to mean "entitlement" you can see that a pregant woman is under no more obligation to carry to term against her wishes than a free man is to pay unjust taxes to support, say, an indigent mother, or her infant child, or her decision to abort. All individuals have the right to THEIR life, et. al, and no valid claim on any others. It is true that this language never appears in the Constitution, or in any amendment, but this is the philosophy of individual liberty upon which the founders based their eloquent, if imperfect, prose. And it's the part that makes America the greatest nation on earth. To a true patriot, allowing "emanations" from said text in defense of individual liberty should cause him no fear or shame or guilt. Posted by: johngalt at July 13, 2005 4:21 PM
But jk thinks:
Comments will close soon -- I may get the last word! Sorry, jg, you are putting words in my mouth. I said nothing about individual rights of the child, or really anything about abortion except that it is too far a leap for me from "secure in their persons" to "you cannot require parental notification for abortions" and "you must allow partial birth abortions -- because the Constitutions sez so!" Every newfound right by emanation, as I said, is one less thing that I have a right to pursue legislatively. This patriot is scared quite rightly. "Secure in their person," huh? I think we'd better establish the right to universal health care! No fear or shame or guilt required, boys, we just protecting your liberty! Posted by: jk at July 13, 2005 7:31 PM
But johngalt thinks:
I don't believe I put any words in your mouth. The words you cite were attributed to Christo-fascists (a term I believe I have coined) and unnamed "others." In mentioning those things here I'm just pointing out what ideas you're aligning yourself with. So-called "partial birth" abortions, yes. You do no service to your federalist cause by assailing liberties and drawing false analogies. Keep in mind, I'm an ally! Cheers. Posted by: johngalt at July 14, 2005 10:18 AMJuly 6, 2005Another Look at KeloI was excoriated, crucified, and slapped around with a wet herring when I meekly suggested in a comment that Kelo v New London did ]not anger me like Raich did. Hindrocket from PowerLine has a piece in the Weekly Standard's website, Second Thoughts on Kelo and the second thoughts of one of blogdom's greatest lawyers kind of comport with my first thoughts. Hinderocker goes a little farther than I want to, suggesting that the case may have been well decided -- I would certainly have dissented. But he does dare to enumerate the advantages of eminent domain and provide a more realistic assessment of its uses. Today most significant development projects involve multiple uses and cooperation between public and private entities. While such projects can no doubt be subject to various abuses, they can also be enormously successful and of great public benefit--to take just one example, consider the spectacular renovation of Baltimore's inner harbor. Moreover, two factors minimize the danger that economic development projects pose to individual rights. First, they are carried out in the glare of publicity. Nothing in local government attracts more scrutiny or more criticism than such projects. Second, the Fifth Amendment requires that anyone whose property is taken for a public use be fairly compensated, and in practice, most takings are compensated generously. Thus, while condemnation can undoubtedly impose hardship on individuals, it is unlikely to result in gross injustice.
Posted by John Kranz at 12:49 PM
| Comments (5)
But johngalt thinks:
Hinderacker is wrong. It is EMINENTLY clear that the case was wrongly decided. H's problem is his thinking is so infused with pragmatism that he can defend principles when packaged together that he'd never endorse separately. He writes that since "the project includes a typical mix of public and private uses" (the vast majority of which are indeed private - a riverwalk, the boatramp portion of the marina, and a dubious museum being the identified public uses) the city's development entity is justified in using condemnation to clear the deck for the WHOLE project. Such slight-of-hand would make Houdini proud. And H's claim that "most takings are compensated generously" is in dire need of substantiation. Let's start by asking for a statistical analysis of condemnation compensations nationwide, and then look at the number of property owners who settled for a nominal buyout offer from the developer with the 600 pound gorilla of eminent domain sitting in the anteroom. Our argument was never that eminent domain must be abolished, but that it must be strictly limited to purely public uses, as so stated in the Constitution. Kelo did precisely the opposite. Hinderacker argued that if the Kelo decision had been reversed it "would have the practical effect of making such ['economic development'] projects virtually impossible. This is poppycock! It would have made them cost more, but what does the government care when they're spending taxpayer's money anyway, and private developers doing the city's bidding will simply pass their costs along, with a neat little "administrative fee" to boot. Some individuals may decide not to sell at any price, but when presented with the architect's plan for what their neighborhood will soon become, with highrises on all four sides perhaps, along with a check for a tidy sum and suggestion of what he could build in some cornfield somewhere, most will budge. And for those who don't, aren't these civic do-gooders (sorry Silence) trying to create mixed-use developments anyway? What could be more mixed-use than to leave a few of the original properties peppered throughout their grandiose new-urban dream? Still, there may be some who claim the "economic development" project is a taking of value from their property by the required zoning changes in the neighborhood. The only recourse of these individuals is to take the city to court. This is and expensive and exhausting process that may ultimately go all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States before the Constitional limits on the government can be enforced. Kelo, et. al., did this on all of our behalf, but the Court forgot why it exists. And what is the cost of the decision the court DID reach? Oh, not that much really. Just the erosion of one of the key pillars of liberty left on earth - a man's right to his property. But hey, at least we still have a new Coast Guard Museum! - Those of us who refuse to play the "pay for play" game with our local government officials have long known that "you can't fight city hall." This abysmal ruling only makes that sad reality more prevalent and more potent. Posted by: johngalt at July 7, 2005 3:21 PM
But jk thinks:
Very well said, jg, and I do not join "Hindrocket" in supporting the decision. I will sustain my original view that in the litany of bad SCOTUS decisions, Kelo v New London did not deserve the attention it received. I love Chris Muir's DayByDay as much as anything on the Internet, but the sequence of Damon coming home to find his house missing is the best (and most humorous) example of over-the-top invective. Silence: are you going to stand still and be called a "civic do-gooder" by Johngalt? If you need a second for your duel, let me know -- your honor has been impugned!
But johngalt thinks:
No no, wait! I was apologizing to Silence for impugning his name, not implying that he was such a "civic" do-gooder. Maybe that didn't come across clearly. (And the good editor over at the Weekly Standard must really be scratching his head, since I sent him this same comment in reply to the Hinderacker article, verbatim.) As for "over-the-top" I'll just repeat myself: "Erosion of one of the key pillars of liberty left on earth."
But jk thinks:
Well, if Silence accepts your apology, I will stand down... Posted by: jk at July 8, 2005 6:07 PM
But Silence Dogood thinks:
Yes, please don't lump me in with the civic do gooders, especially in this case. I am right with you on the right to property and second your motion to hear more substantiation of the generous compensation. This would be generous compared to the current property rights? Before or after the area is deemed blighted or condemned? The blighted or condemned term is actively sought by developers to lower property values prior to an acquisition. After this, any analysis of how generous the compensation is a bit of a farce. Posted by: Silence Dogood at July 12, 2005 5:33 PMJuly 5, 20055 Supreme Court Vacancies?If the rumours are true, the Democrats are really going to regret losing last year. Definately is Justice O'Connor... Quite likely is Chief Justice Rehnquist... Now comes a rumor of Clinton appointee and ACLU lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg...
And Bush 41's appointee and the generally not conservative David Souter.
RightWingNews.com, which brought Souter and Ginsburg to my attention adds...
Except for Washington and probably FDR, I bet no other President has ever had the opportunity to bring up so many nominees. Dark days for the left and Democrats ahead. Dark days indeed.
Posted by AlexC at 2:51 PM
| Comments (1)
But jk thinks:
You don't understand -- he didn't win by a large enough margin to change the fundamental makeup of the court! But seriously folks, even with fewer vacancies, a new SCOTUS could really end up a key component of the W legacy. Posted by: jk at July 5, 2005 6:13 PMJuly 3, 2005Unborking the courtWilliam Kristol offers a clarion call to the administration to succeed where even Reagan failed. Reversing the Bork Defeat
Posted by John Kranz at 1:46 PM
July 2, 2005Supreme Court PredictionA prediction from the Polish Immigrant....
I think this will happen no matter whom Bush nominates. The chances of this happening will be close to 100% if he nominates a black woman, say, Janice Rogers Brown. That's pretty cynical. But probably very likely to happen.
Posted by AlexC at 2:00 PM
| Comments (8)
But jk thinks:
Silence, I don't really see that the President's opposition will take on the "constructionist" label. These folks truly believe that the Constitution is a living document and that its penumbrae should be explored. A strict constructionist (as I prefer) will use what is actually written in the Constitution. I wish, in the wake of Kelo and Raich, people might see SCOTUS as something more than the abortion police, but perhaps I wish for too much...
But Silence Dogood thinks:
I certainly intend to take on the constructionist label as I think it will be applied to anyone whose beleifs match those of groups like Focus on the Family. It's a big ill defined term that will be misused and overused in the next few months. As I have blogged before I am a frim beleiver in the power of the 9th and 10th amendments and their design as catch-alls to limit legislative power. I agree completely on Kelo and Raich but my conclusion from those rulings is that it is proof we need an active court to prevent unchecked activism by the other two branches - legislatvie (Kelo) and executive (Raich). Posted by: Silence Dogood at July 5, 2005 11:03 AM
But jk thinks:
I lost you on that one, Silence. Before I rant on some meaning that I misconstrued, can I ask you to write up longer description? You really believe that the court is not activist enough and is ceding power and purview to the other branches? And, I'm not a member of Colorado Focus on the Family but, there is no right to abortion in the Constitution. Even though I am pro--choice, anybody who "finds" one will not be a judge I support.
But johngalt thinks:
There is no "right to abortion" but there is the right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects..." From the right to personal security the right to self-determination of all aspects of one's physical body is Constitutionally guaranteed against any and all interference by the state or by Congress. No matter how you slice it, until a fetus is seperated from it's mother it is a part of the mother's "person." It is not an individual, and therefore has no individual rights. Posted by: johngalt at July 6, 2005 3:01 PM
But Silence Dogood thinks:
Stunning as it may sound I am actually making the argument that we need a very activist Judicial branch. The last 25 years have seen a huge increase in executive power and for the most part a decrease in legislative power. The Judicial branch is about the only thing left maintaining a balance. Do the courts overstep their bounds on occasion? Sure they do, but so too do the other branches, hence the checks and balances system. The "enemy combatants" term created and defined by the Patriot Act is a classic example of executive over reach and legislative compliance. I still side with johngalt on the abortion issue, he makes my point very nicely. The power to limit or abolish abortion does not exist in the Constitution either, try to find it anywhere and you will be left with an even more tenuous link than that which Raich uses between federal drug laws and interstate commerce. Posted by: Silence Dogood at July 6, 2005 5:09 PM
But jk thinks:
Yeah, you and Johngalt teaming up on me -- as usual... I appreciate the candor but the balance of power that concerns me is State vs. Federal. Every "landmark" decision from SCOTUS, and every new "right" discovered is one less thing that be decided by States or local communities. Posted by: jk at July 6, 2005 10:00 PMJuly 1, 2005Bush Nominees: The ListGeorge Bush nominated Framer Benjamin Franklin to the Supreme Court today. President Bush may also nominate George Washington to the nation's highest court, though the nominated General would face scrutiny of his environmental record.
Posted by AlexC at 5:00 PM
| Comments (1)
But johngalt thinks:
Perfect! Posted by: johngalt at July 2, 2005 2:30 PMSupreme Court VacancyThe first vacancy in 11 years is announced. Sadly for Democrats, they were unable to elect Senator John Kerry in November, so we'll get to see them freak out at whomever the President nominates. Even sadder is that Justice O'Connor is not exactly a conservative, so they're going to be down at least 1/2... maybe a whole vote to the other side. Changing the balance. A few days ago, Democrat Leader Senator Harry Reid has already made his list of acceptible nominees public.
Reid described them all as bright and able lawyers who would be strong additions to the nation's highest court. The Senator has apparently never heard of Article 2, Section 2 of the US Constitution. In any case, if (when) the President nominates someone other than the four listed above, expect the Democrats to bring out the bag of tricks. Filibustering, personal attacks, and endless stalling. Not to mention the incessant whining of a party with diminishing credibility. With 55 Republicans to 45 Democrats, it's pretty clear that the new extra-Constitutional filibuster option will still be on the table. Let us not forget that the 2006 Senate election season is already underway. Do the Democrat senators up for re-election in red states want to go against their electorate? Senators like Bill Nelson of Florida and Ben Nelson of Nebraska could be pickups. Maybe Lieberman would also get on board. That gets you closer... 58. Can Harry Reid keep his party in line? More importantly, can Frist keep Snowe and Specter and Lugar and McCain? (The usual suspects). Despite a majority, and the Constitution on the President's side, this is going to be ugly. It would sweet, if Chief Justice Rehnquist resigned now. It would throw the Dems against a wall. With two vacancies on the Court (a high profile court everyone, even the most politically disinterested, knows about) they'll be forced to do something and not stall. The cherry on top of that pile would be the Chief Justice nomination process. The favorites are Scalia and Thomas, both favorites of the left. It'll be a lovely time to watch politics.
Posted by AlexC at 4:00 PM
| Comments (2)
But jk thinks:
I guess we're both sick, sad puppies. But I am really looking forward to a good fight. 1) August news doldrums -- banished! 2) I think Rove can position things to make the left look unreasonable. 3) Maybe get a SCOTUS that won't make decisions like Kelo v New London. (Though sadly, O'Connor joined Thomas on the correct side of Raich).
But johngalt thinks:
Ask yourself if John Kerry had become president, and Republicans suggested he nominate a justice with "mainstream" views, how much deference would JFK give to the opposition party's sensibilities? ZIP. We'd be in for another Ginsberg! It's time now for another Thomas instead. (Readers know that Janice Rogers Brown is my dream candidate, but I predict Alberto Gonzales for this vacancy.) What I'd like to see is some learned speculation as to the strategy of O'Connor's resignation preceding Rehnquist's, for I expect the latter to follow suit before the end of this President's administration. Posted by: johngalt at July 2, 2005 2:28 PMLet the games beginWow. The most difficult to replace justice steps down. You'd have to think that Ralph Neas crowd might only fight 99% to see Rehnquist replaced by a another conservative, and that conservatives would find a squishy (if I may borrow Sugarchuck parlance) replacement for Ginsberg an improvement. But this news throws the soul of SCOTUS (if there is indeed one left) up for grabs. WASHINGTON -- Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court and a key swing vote on issues such as abortion and the death penalty, said Friday she is retiring. It's to be a long and steamy --but fun-- summer. Let me end with more wrath inducement. I have had numerous chances to object to Justice O'Connor's jurisprudence. But her personal story (read her autobiography!), personal honor, dignity, and personal love of country are unimpeachable.
Posted by John Kranz at 11:07 AM
|