June 30, 2010
McDonald v. City of Chicago: Upholding the Constitution
In McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court does the right thing:
In its second major ruling on gun rights in three years, the Supreme Court Monday extended the federally protected right to keep and bear arms to all 50 states. The decision will be hailed by gun rights advocates and comes over the opposition of gun control groups, the city of Chicago and four justices.Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the five justice majority saying "the right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner."
The ruling builds upon the Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller that invalidated the handgun ban in the nation's capital. More importantly, that decision held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was a right the Founders specifically delegated to individuals. The justices affirmed that decision and extended its reach to the 50 states. Today's ruling also invalidates Chicago's handgun ban.
It always struck me as bizarre that anyone would claim that the Second Amendment could not be applied to the states. I know we went through this with the rest of the Bill of Rights, and I had thought that the issue was pretty much settled.
The issue is that liberals want to treat the Second Amendment like they treat immigration laws; as "fake" laws that ok are on the books but aren't meant to be enforced.
Some on the left will also claim that this decision represents "conservative activism," but this is not a serious argument.
Activism is when you're making things up that aren't in the constitution. Harry Blackmun found a right to abortion in the due process clause Constitution, but this was pure imagination. Likewise, the commerce clause has been stretched to the point where it's meaningless. But the Second Amendment is there in plain sight, and any study shows that it means an individual right to own firearms. So it's not judicial activism when you're striking down laws that blatantly violate the constitution.
Gun prohibition is dead, at least for now. Jurisdictions such as Chicago will have to obey all of the Constitution, and are rewriting their laws as I type this. Whether their rewritten laws pass muster will be determined in innumerable court cases. The McDonald decision correctly left open some gun control, the question will be how much is acceptable.
What is scary is that as with DC v Heller, this was a 5 - 4 decision. This shows the importance of winning elections, and of getting originalists on the Supreme Court. Four justices actually do not believe the Second Amendment means what it plainly says, or what the Founders meant it to mean. Now that is judicial activism.
Writing in The Washington Times, author and attorney David Kopel explains how the McDonald decision has implications for the current hearings on Elena Kagan's bid to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court:
Perhaps the most startling aspect of the Supreme Court opinions in McDonald v. Chicago was the dissenters' assault on District of Columbia v. Heller. Not only did Justice Stephen G. Breyer vote against extending the Second Amendment to state and local governments, he also argued forcefully and at length for overturning Heller and, therefore, for turning the Second Amendment into a practical nullity. Ominously, Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined the Breyer dissent - contradicting what she told the U.S. Senate and the American people last summer.Regarding the key issue in McDonald - whether the 14th Amendment makes the Second Amendment enforceable against state and local governments - Justice Sotomayor resolutely refused to tell the senators how she might vote. So in voting against incorporating the Second Amendment, Justice Sotomayor was not inconsistent with what she had told the Senate. But regarding Heller, her actions as a justice broke her promises from last summer.
The Breyer-Sotomayor-Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissent urged that Heller be overruled and declared, "In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense."
Contrast that with her Senate testimony: "I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller." And, "I understand how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans."
Yet her McDonald opinion shows her "understanding" that those many, many Americans are completely wrong to think they have a meaningful individual right.
To the Senate Judiciary Committee, Justice Sotomayor repeatedly averred that Heller is "settled law." The Associated Press reported that Sen. Mark Udall, Colorado Democrat, "said Sotomayor told him during a private meeting that she considers the 2008 ruling that struck down a Washington, D.C., handgun ban as settled law that would guide her decisions in future cases."
They're looking to overturn Heller, folks.
Posted by Tom at 7:00 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
April 14, 2010
What is the Job of a Supreme Court Justice?
Wesley Pruden sums up what I've been thinking about the role of a Supreme Court Justice
Chance for 41 votes and a spine
The Washington Times
by Wesley Pruden
April 13, 2010President Obama probably isn't looking for another "wise Latina" to put on the Supreme Court to replace John Paul Stevens, but he's apparently looking for a rabble-rouser. He promised on his return from Prague that he will nominate someone who knows "that in a democracy powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens."
Ordinarily, this sort of boiler-plate civics-lesson blah-blah is easily dismissed as a politician's instinctive blather, but this is community-activism writ large, reflecting what Barack Obama actually believes and wants to impose on the court if he means what he says.
The voices of ordinary citizens are important, and it's important to make sure their voices aren't "drowned out" by "powerful interests," but once upon a time that was not the job of judges. The job description for a Supreme Court justice was about allegiance and dedication to the Constitution, which would take care of the citizens, ordinary and otherwise. A justice of the Supreme Court understood that he was to look to the law and leave community organizing to someone like Barack Obama.Alexander Hamilton thought "the judiciary will always be the least dangerous institution to the Constitution" because it has neither "the sword nor the purse." He never imagined that judges could, or would want to, steal from Congress the power and authority to write the nation's laws. Robert Yates, the chief justice of the New York Supreme Court, tried to warn the constitutional convention of 1787 of what the U.S. Supreme Court might come to because "a court of justice" had never been invested "with such immense powers, and yet placed in a situation so little responsible." The Supreme Court, he warned, could "extend the limits of the general government gradually ... and melt down the states into one entire government for every purpose."
And so it came to pass. The states -- with Congress going happily along -- have been "melted down" so that presidents with a majority can now expect his senators, whose first allegiance is to party and partisanship, to rubber-stamp whomever he chooses. Some Republicans promise a rousing opposition to Mr. Obama's nominee if he (or more likely she) is a nominee outside the "mainstream." But more likely the Senate, a weak and skulking lot of badgers and hedgers, will indulge their usual appetite for debate and discussion, which is to say, none at all. Orrin Hatch of Utah, ever eager to argue that he and his fellows aren't quite as bad as everyone thinks they are, set the tone for the loyal opposition with his hint that he might endorse Hillary Clinton, if the president is tempted to use the court as the town dump, as presidents before him have done to rid themselves of ambitious allies.
With 59 sure votes, the Democrats could confirm a melancholy Dane, an imam or a Hottentot if the president insists, but with 41 votes, a spine and the threat of a filibuster the Republicans could make the debate over the nominee a teaching moment, particularly with the November elections casting a dark and deepening shadow over the proceedings. The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, the "wise Latina," ultimately succeeded, but the debate unfolded as the teaching moment the conservatives intended. They can repeat this modest success again.
The Republicans in the Senate will be tempted to resign themselves to contributing polite argument and then polite applause, to sit back in the warm embrace of self-satisfaction for the job they imagine they have done on the president, his agenda and his party over the past year. The polls show the president's approval ratings continuing the slide; the passage of health care "reform" has only accelerated the slide. The Republican pols imagine they did it, that all they have to do now is coast toward November and reward.
But the unraveling of the Obama myth is the refining work of reality, which is a harsh teacher who grades on a steep curve. The Tea Party protests, much maligned by polite and prissy folk, have turned the nation's politics upside down and there's scant sign that anything will turn them aright again. The meek and mild Republican strategists have been neutered by the accusation that theirs has become "the party of No." Indeed it has, and for one brief, shining moment it has the old politics on the run. This is no time to go wobbly.
Posted by Tom at 7:13 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
April 10, 2010
But Is It Constitutional?
All three are disturbing, but the first is the worst.
Congressman Phil Hare (D-IL):
Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI):
Congressman Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ)
One, not a single one of these congressmen has the foggiest notion of what is actually in the Constitution.
Two, none of them care.
Congressman Phil Hare blatantly says "I Don't Worry About the Constitution'
Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI) thinks "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in the Constitution when it is in the Declaration of Independence
Congressman Frank LoBiondo confuses Article 1 Section 1 with the First Amendment
This is disgraceful. The current attitude is "if we can pass a bill it must be constitutional."
Er, no.
Does The Constitution Matter?
Does the Constitution matter as anything more than a schedule for holding elections? We're all concerned with the Bill of Rights, especially the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, and we talk about them all of the time.
But what about the "welfare clause", which states that
Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Or the "interstate commerce" clause
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Or, finally, the "necessary and proper" clause
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18. The Congress shall have Power ...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
For that matter, what about the 9th and 10th Amendments
Amendment IX - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The truth is that to most of our politicians, both Republican and Democrat, none of this matters a whit. They trot out the Eighth Amendment when they want to ban the death penalty, or the Second when they want to defend our gun rights. The First, Fourth, and Fifth get a lot of attention too. Otherwise, a dispassionate observer can be excused for thinking that our government document provides little more than a schedule for holding elections.
This said, it is true that liberals, progressives, Democrats, whatever term you want to use, are the most blatant in their distain for using the Constitution as any sort of guide as to what laws Congress can or cannot pass. It is they who have twisted the interstate commerce clause out of all recognition, and why buy into a theory of a "living constitution" that essentially says "we're going to make it up as we go along."
If liberals want to bring up the Patriot Act or some such, fine, I'll trade you a Patriot Act for your health care legislation. I'll make those trades all day.
Progressives tried and failed to get FDR's Second Bill of Rights incorporated into the Constitution, they just decided to achieve the same set of objectives through legislative fiat and hope that they could get enough sympathetic justices on the bench who would approve. We've seen the results in everything from Roe v Wade to our current health care legislation.
Which brings us to Virginia's Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and Delegate Bob Marshall
Defenders of the Constitution
Many attorney generals around the U.S. (15 by last count) have filed suit against certain provisions in the Democrat health care bill. Since I live in Virginia, I'm going to concentrate there.
Former state senator Ken Cuccinelli was elected Attorney General last November, and wasted no time in setting forth a Constitutionalist agenda. He explained his lawsuit against Obama Care in an article in National Review yesterday:
There are very good reasons that the federal government has never, in the last 221 years, used the Commerce Clause of the Constitution as a vehicle for requiring citizens to purchase goods or services from other citizens.The first is textual. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution provides that "the Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations, and among the several States." Although there have been disputes about just how far this should reach into commerce that is entirely intrastate, until now, it has been recognized that this constitutional provision deals with regulation of commerce -- that is, with the use of law to impose reason and order on the voluntary commercial actions of citizens, as well as on activities that substantially affect commerce. An individual mandate to purchase health insurance is not regulation in that sense.
Another good reason this has not been done before is that it turns the Commerce Clause into an alternative, off-books funding mechanism. According to the "findings" section of the law itself, the mandate achieves economies of scale, but in reality, it achieves income redistribution. The law caps the amount that insurance companies can charge based on age, and forbids them to exclude those with pre-existing conditions. As such, the young and healthy people the law forces to buy insurance are overcharged for the purpose of subsidizing the old and those with pre-existing conditions.
...Fortunately, Virginia's governor and legislature acted decisively -- and in a bipartisan fashion -- to adopt Virginia's new anti-mandate law, the Health Care Freedom Act. The law states that in Virginia, citizens cannot be compelled to purchase health insurance against their will. It is in direct conflict with the federal health-care bill, and we have filed a lawsuit to defend it.
AG Cuccinelli discusses his lawsuit and how if Virginia loses it will mean the end of federalism in the United States
Also see this Q & A about the lawsuit on the website of the Attorney General.
Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall (R-VA-13) is the one who wrote and introduced the legislation AG Cuccinelli referred to above: HB10, Virginia Healthcare Freedom Act, which bans a mandatory federal health insurance mandate. The act was passed by the legislature with large bipartisan supportand signed into law by Governor McDonnell on March 24.
If you actually watch the video you'll learn that HB10 is not about '"nullification," so let's not have any silly comments comparing Bob Marshall to John C Calhoun or some such.
HB10: Virginia Healthcare Freedom Act
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 38.2-3430.1:1 as follows:
§ 38.2-3430.1:1. Health insurance coverage not required.
No resident of this Commonwealth, regardless of whether he has or is eligible for health insurance coverage under any policy or program provided by or through his employer, or a plan sponsored by the Commonwealth or the federal government, shall be required to obtain or maintain a policy of individual insurance coverage. No provision of this title shall render a resident of this Commonwealth liable for any penalty, assessment, fee, or fine as a result of his failure to procure or obtain health insurance coverage. This section shall not apply to individuals voluntarily applying for coverage under a state-administered program pursuant to Title XIX or Title XXI of the Social Security Act.
The bottom line is that it's not the government's job to provide you with health insurance. And it sure can't force you to buy a policy. Get over it.
We're not going to repeal all of the horrendous Obama-Pelosi-Reid-Care bill through lawsuits alone. In the end we've got to elect true conservatives to both the Congress and White House. But perhaps we can get rid of some of it's more onerous regulations through lawsuits, and at the very least we can get this country talking about the Constitution once again. It is more than a schedule for holding elections, it does limit the power of the federal government, and there is a growing consensus on these matters.
Posted by Tom at 12:00 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
May 28, 2009
Sonia Sotomayor Doesn't Understand "The Rule of Law"
Don't take it from me, here's what the New York Times reports
Sotomayor's Appellate Opinions Are Unpredictable, Lawyers and Scholars Say
In the decade she has served on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals -- the busiest appellate court for business and financial matters in the nation -- Judge Sonia Sotomayor has authored some 150 civil and business cases and voted on hundreds more. But many lawyers and scholars who have examined her record closely say that her opinions in this field are unpredictable, and do not put her clearly in a pro- or anti-business camp.
But as former Assistant United States Attorney Andrew McCarthy pointed out yesterday, the point of the law is to be predictable. It's what "rule of law" is all about.
But wait, it gets worse Ed Whelan, writing at National Review, goes through a 1996 speech later turned into a law review article. It's clear that Sotomayor either has no idea what the term "rule of law" means, or she's so wrapped up in pushing her agenda that she doesn't care:
In 1996, Judge Sonia Sotomayor delivered a speech to law students that she then turned into a law-review article (which she co-authored with Nicole A. Gordon), "Returning Majesty to the Law and Politics: A Modern Approach" (30 Suffolk U.L. Rev. 35 (1996)). The article is muddled and mediocre--it's certainly not something that those struggling to portray Sotomayor as brilliant would want to highlight--but I will focus less on its overall quality than on some of Sotomayor's arguments:1. Sotomayor argues, "It is our responsibility"--the responsibility of lawyers and judges--"to explain to the public how an often unpredictable system of justice is one that serves a productive, civilized, but always evolving, society." She identifies--and treats as equally legitimate--four "reasons for the law's unpredictability": (a) "laws are written generally and then applied to different factual situations"; (b) "many laws as written give rise to more than one interpretation"; (c) "a given judge (or judges) may develop a novel approach to a specific set of facts or legal framework that pushes the law in a new direction"; and (d) the purpose of a trial is not simply to search for the truth but to do so in a way that protects constitutional rights.
Somehow Sotomayor doesn't see fit even to question whether, and under what circumstances, it's proper or desirable for a judge to "develop a novel approach" that "pushes the law in a new direction." Instead, she complains about "recurring public criticism about the judicial process," and she laments that lawyers "have also unfortunately joined the public outcry over excessive verdicts and seemingly ridiculous results reached in some cases" (as though lawyers have some special responsibility to indulge judicial excess). The fact that Sotomayor cites as her lead example of unwelcome "public criticism" an article "describing Senator Dole's criticism of liberal ideology of Clinton judicial appointments and American Bar Association" lends credence to the suspicion that Sotomayor is less interested in the majesty of the law than in the majesty of liberal activist judges.
2. Sotomayor discusses "the law" without distinguishing meaningfully between the legislature's role in making law and the judiciary's role in applying it. For example, she asserts:
The public expects the law to be static and predictable. The law, however, is uncertain and responds to changing circumstances.What the public is entitled to expect is that judges will apply the law neutrally, according to established principles. That's a large part of what the "rule of law" means. It's the province of legislatures to change the law (prospectively, of course) to "respond[] to changing circumstances."
3. Sotomayor complains that "the public fails to appreciate the importance of indefiniteness in the law." But beyond pointing out the uncontroversial fact that some indefiniteness is inevitable (for reasons (a), (b), and (d) in point 1), she nowhere makes the case that indefiniteness is somehow a positive good. She relies heavily on Jerome Frank's legal realist views about the development of law, but nowhere explains why legislatures aren't the proper forum for (to use Frank's phrase) "adapting [law] to the realities of ever-changing social, industrial, and political conditions."
4. As if Sotomayor's unwarranted celebration of "indefiniteness" weren't enough to alarm anyone who cares about the rule of law, anyone interested in civil-justice reform ought to take note of Sotomayor's criticism that "legislators have introduced bills that place arbitrary limits on jury verdicts in personal injury cases. But to do this is inconsistent with the premise of the jury system." Oh, really? How can it be that legislation can determine when juries should rule for plaintiffs but not limit the amounts they can award?
Of course, judges aren't supposed to develop a "novel approach." They're supposed to apply the law, whether they like it or not. Sotomayor, on the other hand, wants to legislate from the bench and enact a radical left agenda.
Previous
Rule of Law, Not the Rule of Lawyers
Stop Sonia SotomayorPosted by Tom at 10:00 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
May 27, 2009
Stop Sonia Sotomayor
I am far too busy this week to post much of anything, and will probably not have a chance to put up anything again until next week. As such, I'll let the editors of The Washington Times express my opinion as to why Sonia Sotomayor should not be confirmed to the Supreme Court:
With his nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the U.S. Supreme Court, President Obama has abandoned all pretense of being a post-partisan president. While he may like to think of himself as a thoughtful moderate soaring above the issues that divide America, his actions reveal what hides under that hopeful lining.Presidents usually nominate judges that espouse their philosophy. So what does this nomination tell us about Mr. Obama's true colors?
Even the liberal establishment worries that Judge Sotomayor tilts too far to the left. New Republic essayist Jeffrey Rosen reports that fellow liberals who have watched or worked with her closely "expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and... [they have said] she is 'not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench.' "
A suspiciously high number of her decisions have been overruled by higher courts. Wendy Long of the Judicial Confirmation Network said that record shows "she is far more of a liberal activist than even the current liberal activist Supreme Court."There will be much to say in days to come about Judge Sotomayor's manifest lack of appropriate judicial restraint and about other problems in her record. For now, though, three red flags beg for attention.
"Where Policy Is Made": Speaking at Duke University Law School in 2005, Judge Sotomayor said the "Court of Appeals is where policy is made." On its face, the assertion runs counter to more than 200 years of American legal tradition holding that courts are merely meant to interpret existing law, not actively make policy choices.
Immediately realizing she was on thin ice, the judge continued: ". . . and I know this is on tape and I should never say that, because we don't 'make' law." To much laughter, and with facial and hand gestures to indicate that her next line was to be taken with humor as a useful fiction, she added: "I'm not promoting it and I'm not advocating it."
But judicial activism is no joke. It undermines the Constitution and substitutes judicial whim for democratic decision-making. Unelected judges, answerable to no one but themselves and serving for life, can all too easily become dangerous oligarchs.
White judges know less: Judge Sotomayor seems to think that inherent racial and sexual differences are not simply quirks of genetics, but make some better than others. Consider her 2002 speech at the University of California-Berkeley School of Law."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," she said. "I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."
She also accepted as potentially valid the idea that the "different perspectives" of "men and women of color" are due to "basic differences in logic in reasoning" due to "inherent physiological or cultural differences."
If a white male had said these openly racialist words in a prepared speech, his chances of reaching the U.S. Supreme Court would be gone in an instant. Instead, it seems that these outlandish remarks are what qualified Judge Sotomayor in Mr. Obama's eyes.
Rewarding Discrimination: Judge Sotomayor seems to favor racial discrimination. Consider the case of Ricci v. DeStefano. In that controversial case, 19 white firemen were denied promotion because no blacks scored high enough on a race-neutral test to also be promoted. Judge Sotomayor ruled against the white firefighters.
If Mr. Obama wanted a judge with the right "empathy," he struck out with Judge Sotomayor. One of the white firefighters denied promotion, Frank Ricci, is dyslexic. In order to ace the promotion exam, he quit a second job, spent $1,000 for instruction materials, and spent many hours reading those books into an audio tape to help him study. For his extraordinary efforts, he finished sixth out of 77 applicants for promotion - but then was denied, simply because he is white.
Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jose Cabranes, appointed by a Democratic president, complained that the ruling written by Judge Sotomayor and two other judges "contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case."
The Supreme Court is expected to rule on Ricci v. DeStefano before the Senate votes on Judge Sotomayor's nomination. It would be an extraordinary rebuke were a current nominee to be overruled on such a controversial case by the very justices she is slated to join.
Judge Sotomayor seems to be the most radical person ever nominated for the high court. To continue to command public respect, the Senate will have to ask her some hard questions. The simplest one to ask will be the hardest one for her to answer: Given her statements against whites and males, can she be fair to all Americans?
No. But then, she doesn't seem interested in being fair, or in applying the law as it is written. She seems determined to advance a radical leftist agenda no matter what the law says. Liberals call it their "living constitution" doctrine. I call it making it up as you go along.
Posted by Tom at 9:55 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
January 31, 2006
Alito Confirmed
Earlier today the Senate voted to confirm Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court by a vote of 58-42. The Democrats attempted a filibuster, but cloture was invoked and the attempt was defeated.
All Republicans except for Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted yes.
All Democrats except for Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia voted no.
That's about as partisan as it can get. But has it always been this way? Let's go through some recent nominees and see what happened.
President George W Bush
78 - 22 John Roberts (2005)
President Bill Clinton
87 - 9 Stephen Breyer (1994): 87 - 9
97 - 3 Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1993)
President George H W Bush
52 - 48 Clarence Thomas (1991)
90 - 9 David Souter (1990)
President Ronald Reagan
97 - 0 Anthony Kennedy (1988)
42 - 58 Robert Bork (1987) defeated
98 - 0 Antonin Scalia (1986)
65 - 33 William Rehnquist, Chief Justice (1986)
99 - 0 Sandra Day O'Connor (1981)
President Gerald Ford
98 - 0 John Paul Stevens (1975)
President Richard M Nixon
98 - 0 William Rehnquist (1971)
89 - 1 Lewis Franklin Powell Jr (1971)
94 - 0 Harry A. Blackmun (1970)
45 - 51 Harold Carswell (1970) defeated
45 - 55 Clement Haynsworth (1969) defeated
71 - 3 Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice (1969)
President Lyndon Baines Johnson
69 - 11 Thurgood Marshall (1967)
In the interests of time that's as far back as I'm going to go. If you'd like to do more research yourself here's a very good site that lists all of justices in our history.I think that the results of my little survey are pretty clear: With few exceptions, most justices are confirmed by overwhelming margims. When there were close votes there were obvious controversial issues.
Not so with John Roberts or Samuel Alito. Unless you are off in left-wing lulu land, it is intellectually dishonest to say that they are "outside the mainstream". If anything, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the most radical person to be appointed in recent years, and she was confirmed by an overwhelming margin.
Powerline sums up my thoughts pretty well:
The vote changes the "rules" for confirming Supreme Court Justices. Under the Alito rule, Senators will vote against highly qualified nominee for no reason other than that they expect the nominee to rule contrary to their preference on major issues. Under the Alito rule, the president's party, in effect, must control the Senate in order for the president to have top-notch nominees of his choice confirmed. When the the president's party doesn't control the Senate, only compromise nominees acceptable to both parties can expect to be confirmed.Such a shame that it has come to this. Liberals will no doubt find a way to blame it all on President Bush, citing this or that. But the fact remains that to good nominees, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, had far too many votes cast against them, and for no good reason.
The reason for all this of course is that the Democrats are being forced leftward by radical groups such as Moveon.org and by blogs such as the Daily Kos (Republicans are not moving righward, as the effect the right-wing blogosphere has on them is somewhat different, but that is not the subject of this post).
President Bush will likely get a chance to nominate another justice. We will see a simiar battle, with similarly unfortunate effects for our country and politics.
Posted by Tom at 8:07 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
January 13, 2006
The Party of Joe McCarthy
Can anyone now doubt that the hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee have become a complete and total farce?
Anyone who wanted to discover Sam Alito's views on the Constitution, his judiciary philosophy, or an honest review of the cases he decided while an appelate judge, will have to look elsewhere.
The Democrats don't care what he thinks about the Constitution. They just want to know how he will vote on any case involving abortion.
And since by now it is clear that they believe that he will vote to overturn Roe, or at least parts of it, they are so determined to prevent his assention to the Supreme Court that any tactic, no matter how dirty, will do.
Monday and Tuesday I thought that the hearings would be pretty much the same as the hearings for John Roberts; entirely without substance. The Democrats misrepresented his case history, and gave speeches instead of asking questions. Ok, so be it, I figured.
But after Wednesday it has become more clear than ever that the Democrats are the party of Joe McCarthy.
It was not enough for them to lie about his record as a judge
It was not enough for them to give endless speeches during their "question time", demonstrating that they didn't really care what Alito had to say.
And it wasn't enough that they make mountains out of molehills because they have absolutely nothing "on" Judge Alito.
But now they have stooped to a new low.
The Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have decided that Judge Sam Alito...is a racist.
If they want engage in sillyness about how judges are supposed to "look out for the little guy", and "expand civil rights", yeah fine. We can all roll our eyes at their utter lack of understanding and move on.
But this is absolutely too much.
The Party of Compassion No More
As everyone knows, the situation got so bad that Mrs Alito left the committee room in tears to compose herself.
Oh yes, the great party of compassion, which lectures us endlessly about how they are oh so concerned with women and minorities, has devolved so far into a band of bullies by slandering her husband that she became emotional.
Hope you're happy, you bunch of pathetic creeps.
But of course none of this surprises, for this is the same party that believes that racial attacks on black Republicans is just fine.
And Mrs Alito shouldn't expect any sympathy from the feminists either, if this letter is any indication.
The Slander
Everyone with half a brain knows that his membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton was because the cowards who ran the univesity had kicked ROTC off of campus. Alito was in ROTC, and like many decent people wanted to see it brought back.
That another member of CAP, H.W. Crocker III, wrote some controversial stuff that is controversial is not material.
For what it's worth, here's the quote that has caused so much fuss, and just to be sure, I checked both Washington papers, the Times and the Post, and it's the same in each:
"People nowadays just don't seem to know their place," author H.W. Crocker III wrote in a 1983 issue of the magazine. "Everywhere one turns blacks and hispanics are demanding jobs simply because they're black and hispanic, the physically handicapped are trying to gain equal representation in professional sports, and homosexuals are demanding that government vouchsafe them the right to bear children."A bit much, and a bit intemperate, but not racist. The first sentence is disturbing, to be sure. But I think that liberals are just upset because someone said that all of their "affirmative action" and "diversity" programs are simply quotas by other names.
"Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?"The Democrats have their new slander
"Are you now or have you ever been a racist?"All of this is especially rich coming from Senator Ted Kennedy, oh he of the answered questions of Chapaquiddick.
Worse, to back up his slander, Kennedy decided to go on a fishing expedition, demanding to see some documents of William Rusher (one time publisher of National Review) that are stored at the National Archives.
It was an illegitimate request because 1) the group in question cannot by any reasonable person be called extreme or "out of the mainstream". It was not a white supremicist group or anything similar, and 2) because Kennedy didn't know exactly what he was looking for. He just wanted to see if he could dig up some dirt.
Guilt by Association
The Democrats are engaged in the worst sort of slander; Guilt by Association.
Let's go through all of your memberships, Senator Kennedy, and see what we can find. Let's go through all of the magazines they published, or that you have ever subscribed to. For that matter, let's go through your family history.
From yesterday's Washington Times:
The eight-term senator belonged to an all-male social club -- the Owl -- at Harvard University. The Owl refused to admit women until it was forced to do so during the 1980s, according to records kept by the Harvard Crimson, the student newspaper.A Kennedy spokeswoman said it was an entirely different matter.
"No one can question Senator Kennedy's commitment to equality, justice and civil rights," said Laura Capps. "What he was part of was a social club, not a radical group pushing a radical agenda."
Oh I see. We can't question Kennedy because you say so. And of course he's not a radical.
Unfortunately for the good Senator, the Owl was kicked off campus in 1984 for it's refusal to admit women. And he's still a member, according to reasearch done by the Washington Times. Oops.
And as Mark Levin pointed out earlier this week,
Ted Kennedy’s father was sympathetic to Adolf Hitler while he served as Franklin Roosevelt’s ambassador to Britain. Joseph Kennedy opened back-channels to the Third Reich. He was openly anti-Semitic. FDR had to recall him from his post. Now, what does that say about Ted Kennedy? Nothing — unless, of course, we adopt the smear by association tactics used against Alito.Exactly.
Sad that it has to be spelled out; just because someone somewhere in an organization you belong(ed) to says something controversial does not mean that everyone who has ever belonged to that group subscribes to that same view.
A Bit of History
This is all not "politics as usual" as some will no doubt tell us. And no, the Republicans do not do the same thing to Democrat nominees.
Both of Clinton's appointees were confirmed by overwhelming margins: Ruth Bader Ginsberg 96-3 in 1993, and Stephen Breyer 87-9 in 1994. Yet half of the Democrats couldn't even vote to confirm John Roberts, the vote being 65-33.
Ginsberg was an attorny for the ACLU, hardly a "mainstream" organization. I don't have time this morning to go through her history, but to say that they were controversial would be to understate things. See here and here for details.
Yet Ginsberg and Breyer were eminently qualified for the supreme court, as a review of their careers show. President Clinton did win election, and as such deserved to have qualified nominees approved.
The Media
And notice how the two Washington DC papers covered it all
Wasington Times(quoted above) got their headline right today. Spashed across their front page:
"Alito accused of racism"
The Washington Post, meanwhile, couldn't see fit to call a spade a spade.Alito Leaves Door Open to Reversing 'Roe' Membership In Controversial Group Surfaces As an IssueNow, that doesn't make it so bad, you see? And, just like they did with the blogger Bill Roggio, the Post just loves to put two separate issues into one story to give you the false idea that they are linked.
So, you see, he must be a racist and a sexist. Why, he opposes - gasp - a womans right to choose!
Which is what all this is about.
Update
Ted Kennedy says he's going to quit the Owl Club "as fast as I can"
The club does not allow female members, something it apparently took the good senator five decades to figure out.
As Jonah Goldberg said, that's HIGH-FRICK'N-LARIOUS
Posted by Tom at 8:45 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
October 31, 2005
Time to Fight
President Bush did us right today in nominating Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.
Everything I have heard and read today tells me that he is highly qualified for the court, and is a judicial originalist. Virtually all conservative commentators are happy, and the liberals very unhappy. This alone tells me he was the right choice.
I, along with many other conservatives, were very displeased with the Miers nomination. It pained us to do so, but we had to tell the president that he made a bad choice. As many on the right did support the president's choice, there was an unfortunate split on the right.
The withdrawal of Miers, and nomination of Alito, should not only end that split but should and must unite us in the battle that lies ahead. We who opposed Miers have an obligation to give this battle 110%, and I for one pledge to do so. Those who supported Miers have an obligation to forgive past wounds and unite around our new candidate.
We've got a tough few months ahead, as we can expect the left to try and "bork" Mr Alito. If they succeed, it will be our own fault (assuming there are no skeletons in his closet.
Let the battle be joined.
Posted by Tom at 10:04 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
October 27, 2005
Miers Withdraws
As the world knows by now, Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination to the Supreme Court.
And as readers of this blog know, I thought she was the wrong person for the job. And no, I am not really happy today. As the lead editorial on NRO says today, "No conservative should be in a celebratory mood now that Harriet Miers has withdrawn" Exactly right.
Further, I hold nothing against Mrs Miers. My objection was not really directed against her per se. She has been a good advisor to the president, and from all accounts is a good person and devout Christian. Further, when the president asks you to do something, and all the other advisors around him assure you you're fit for the job, it's awfully hard to say no.
But she did the right thing, and my hat is off to her. Now let's put this behind us and work to get a judicial conservative confirmed. I have faith that this time the president will make the right selection.
Posted by Tom at 4:38 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
October 4, 2005
The Miers Morass
Ugh
I as disappointed as most other conservatives are in the selection of Harriet Meirs by President Bush for the Supreme Court.
The bottom line to the whole thing is that liberals are happy and conservatives are disappointed. That tells you all that you need to know.
I'm also sure you're read most reaction by now, so I won't bore you with quotes and links. Let's just get on with it.
Why the Disappointment
We on the right are disappointed because we finally have a chance to change the balance on the Supreme Court, and we feel that the president blew it. Or at least has risked blowing it, because Miers is a mystery candidate, one whos judicial philosophy is unknown.
Republican presidents do not have a good track record at picking Supreme Court justices. President Eisenhower selected Earl Warren and William Brennan. George HW Bush chose David Souter. Others, such as Sandra Day O'Conner, are at best described as "moderates".
So finally, we thought, after so many mistakes, President Bush has learned from history. And, after the brilliant selection of John Roberts, we thought we were on the right path.
The Importance of the Court
As I discussed in my post on John Roberts, it is through the courts that the left tries to impose it's agenda on us:
From gun control, to smoking, to quotas(er, "diversity"), to gay marriage, and now even to the Pledge of Allegiance, liberals have decided that getting judges to enact their agenda is better than trying to elect legislators.And you can see why they would think so. Convincing the public that you are right is so time consuming and expensive. Legislators and governors who enact unpopular laws can be voted out. No, far better to circumvent representative government with a coterie of philosopher-kings. Socrates would have been proud.
As someone who believes that most issues should be decided by the people through their elected representatives, I favor a courts that actually read the constitution, do not make it up as they go along, do not try to impose their social agenda on us, and certainly do not take foreign law into account.
As such, it is not so much "conservatives" I want to see on the Supreme Court, as it is people who will apply the law as written, whatever it may be.
Why Harriet Miers is a Problem
The short, answer, of course, is that her philosophy is a mystery. She may not even have a judicial philosophy. Nothing in her career has forced her to consider Constitutional law.
Her qualifications are minimal, to say the least. Some conservatives have attempted to defend this by arguing that we need an outsider and such. Please. As Jonah Goldberg pointed out over on NRO, if Hillary Clinton appointed a close associate ("crony") of hers with a similar level of experience, would you defend her likewise?
And as Rich Lowry related;
Just talked to a very pro-Bush legal type who says he is ashamed and embarrassed this morning. Says Miers was with an undistinguished law firm; never practiced constitutional law; never argued any big cases; never was on law review; has never written on any of the important legal issues. Says she's not even second rate, but is third rate. Dozens and dozens of women would have been better qualified. Says a crony at FEMA is one thing, but on the high court is something else entirely. Her long history of activity with ABA is not encouraging from a conservative perspective--few conservatives would spend their time that way. In short, he says the pick is “deplorable.” There may be an element of venting here, but thought I'd pass along for what it's worth. It's certainly indicative of the mood right now...Randy Barnett, writing in Opinion Journal, says much the same thing.
The Defense
Most of the conservative defenses that I have seen are using the "trust George Bush" argument. For all the wordyness of this article, for example, that's what it boils down to.
Sorry, that's not good enough.
Loosing His Base
The reason that's not good enough is that for all of his foreign-policy genuis, he has let us down on domenstic issues.
Name the issue; immigration, spending, legal reform, and what do you get? Not much. Some tax cuts, yes. But on most other issues we have not had progress.
President Bush therefore needed an issue that would rally his base. He needed a fight, something to give us reason to believe, to campaign, and yes to send money. At the very least he needs us standing by ready to help in case the nomination runs into trouble, as it just might.
As things stand now, he's on his own if this nomination goes south.
Scenarios for Trouble
A Paper Trail - Miers was president of a law firm. Law firms have clients, many or most of them corporations. And we know what the left thinks of "corporations". So will the find "corporate polluters" among her clients? Some who didn't have the proper number of minorities on staff? Some who were, gasp, pharmaceutical firms? You can see where this could lead.She Withers under Fire - Yeah I know, she's supposed to be "tough". But that isn't the issue. These Senators are going to ask tough questions, and they won't let up. What if she doesn't give coherent answers on complicated legal issues?
The "indiscretion" - In 1987 Presient Bush had to withdraw the nomination of Douglas Ginsberg when it became known that when he was younger he had used marijuana a few times. Suppose something surfaces in Miers' record that, while questionable, is not too bad. President Bush will be on his own. Conservatives will not fight for this nominee, nor will Republican Senators.
The "Crony" Charge
On the one hand, it's not a serious charge.'
"Crony" is simply a perjorative for "friend"
If someone is qualified, it does not matter as to whether the appointer and appointee knew each other or not. If the appointee is not qualified, it still does not matter.
But of course on the other had the charge of "cronyism" does matter, because perceptions count. People who say that it doesn't matter have a political tin ear, which leads me to...
A Political Tin Ear?
I have to wonder what Bush was thinking when he made this appointment. Did he now know that conservatives would react this way? If not, then shame on him. If so, then he's snubbing us. Which is worse I do not know.
Conclusions
We'll just have to take our lumps and move on. This is no reason to abandon the president on any other issue. Let's concentrate on finishing up Afghanistan and Iraq, and in fighting the war on terror. The simple fact is that we may have a Democrat in the White House in 2008, if for no other reason than that these things tend to go in cycle, and heaven knows I don't trust any of them on foreign affairs.
Posted by Tom at 8:53 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
September 14, 2005
The Roberts Hearings
I haven't watched any of the hearings but have listened to them on the radio, and followed the various blogs over at National Review. My job allows me to listen to the radio much of the day, so I've got a fair idea as to what is going on. I could watch them on C-Span at night, but haven't the time or patience.
But for all of the time and energy that will be spent both in committee and on the floor of the Senate, the central issue is really quite simple. The Democrats, or liberals, I should say, are absolutely petrified that they are on the verge of loosing control of the Supreme Court.
Democrats have had the presidency for only 15 of the past 40 years. They control neither the house nor the senate. They may well capture one or all three in coming years, but even this misses the point.
And that is so because for all the importance of controlling the presidency or congress, it is through the courts that liberals try to accomplish their goals. From gun control, to smoking, to quotas(er, "diversity"), to gay marriage, and now even to the Pledge of Allegiance, liberals have decided that getting judges to enact their agenda is better than trying to elect legislators.
And you can see why they would think so. Convincing the public that you are right is so time consuming and expensive. Legislators and governors who enact unpopular laws can be voted out. No, far better to circumvent representative government with a coterie of philosopher-kings. Socrates would have been proud.
Do I exagerate? I think not. Consider gun control. Liberals have just about given up on persuading legislatures, whether they be state or congress, from enacting serious gun control legislation. In fact, the trend across the country is in the other direction. State after state has been passing "right to carry" laws, which relieve the citizen of having to go before a temperamental judge who may or may not grant a license depending on personal whim. Congress let provisions of the Brady Bill die (which reminds me that I need to get a flash suppressor for my AR-15. They had been banned by that stupid law). Bill Clinton himself gave credit to the NRA for Democrat losses in the congress during his term in office.
Enraged, liberals changed tactics. The new game is to sue gun manufacturers, usually under "product liability" statutes. Fortunately, most attempts have been squashed either by the courts themselves, or by legislatures passing laws absolving manufactures of "abusive lawsuits".
We see a similar tactic with tobacco products. We see lawsuit after lawsuit for more and more money, all under the guise of "product liability" or some such similar claim.
In both cases, liberals pursue their agenda through the wrong forum. The correct thing to do would be to simply come out and say "we think smoking/guns/fill-in-the-blank ought to be legal/illegal, and we're introducing legislation to make it so. " But rarely is this the case.
So it was the unusual news story that told us that the California legislature had passed a bill to make "gay marriage" legal. Most Democrat politicians in the country are caught between a rock and a hard place with this issue. On the one hand, they've got their gay consituency telling them that gay marriage is their number 1 issue. On the other, they've got their much larger black and labor union constituency telling them "no way." The courts provide the perfect answer. They simply put liberal judges in place, and hope they pass gay marriage laws (excuse me, "reinterpret the constitution"). The politicians can then say to the blacks and union members "hey, don't look at me", while it's wink wink to the gays.
Back to the SenateSo for three days in a row John Roberts has been questioned by various senators. Interestingly enough, before about 1955 nominees to the court didn't even apear before the senate. In fact, they refused to go, considering it beneath their dignity to subject themselves to questioning to a bunch of political hacks. And from what I've seen (or rather, heard), they had a point.
For all their pontificating, and attempts by some (Shumer, Biden) to show us that they too know the law ("really, we do!"), it all comes down to one issue. There is only one thing they want to know, because it is at the heart of modern liberalism.
How will he vote on abortion?
I swear I think Roberts could say that he'd order puppies executed and old ladies thrown into the street from their nursing homes and the Democrats wouldn't care.
"Just please, oh please, don't touch Roe v Wade"
Roberts, of course, has adopted what has become known as "the Ginsburg standard". Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Clinton's 1993 nominee, told senators that
“I cannot say one word on that subject that would not violate what I said had to be my rule about no hints, no forecasts, no previews.”How inconvenient her words are to some now. I listened today as Roberts refused to answer questions about how he might rule, with Democrat senators such as Shumer growing more and more frustrated.
Biden demanded that Roberts tell him his opinion on specific issues, saying that because senatorial candidates must tell the public their opinion on various issues, judicial candidates should do likewise. Roberts instructed Biden that judges aren't up for reelection, so no, the analogy does not work.
Kennedy said that he was - hold your breath - "somewhat disappointed" in Roberts.
Feinstein, displaying the worst in tribalist thinking, asked a series of "woman questions": Prefacing a few questions with "As a woman..." and "As a man, Judge Roberts, how do you feel..."
Shumer tried to trip him up on the "Ginsburg standard". Biden interupted him repeatedly, at several points causing Chairman Arlen Specter to intervene on Roberts' behalf. But they failed.
The Meaning of "Qualified"
John Roberts is a qualified, in the academic sense, as anyone ever has been. By all historical precident, he should be confirmed.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg was confirmed in 1993 by a vote of 96-3. Scalia and Renquist were confirmed by overwhelming margins, Thomas famously less so.
Ginsberg specifically told everyone that she believed in a womans "right" to an abortion. Yet had Republicans voted against her they would have accused of all sorts of things, from setting a "litmus test" to being "anti-woman."Roberts will be confirmed, although probably with only 10-20 Democrat votes in the full senate. The committee vote will be straight party line, 10-8.
If this confirmation looks difficult, folks, get ready for the next one. It's going to be bloody. The Democrats are losing their last branch of government, and won't go down without a fight.
Posted by Tom at 9:13 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
July 19, 2005
Whew!
I must say that I have been worried for some time that President Bush would appoint another David Souter, Anthony Kennedy, or Sandra Day O'Conner. After all, the track record of Republican Presidents has not been very good over the past fifty years.
Silly me.
Once again President Bush has come through. From what I can see on various internet sites, Judge John G. Roberts is being hailed by conservaties and attacked by liberals.
This is a good thing.
They're pretty happy over at National Review A few sample comments from their blog:
Robert Alt: John Roberts is an excellent choice — one of the best available — for the Supreme Court. He is a lawyer’s lawyer, and has the reputation for being one of the finest appellate advocates to argue before the Supreme Court. He was a fine brief writer, and has garnered a reputation as a D.C. Court of Appeals Judge for being an excellent opinion writer, authoring concise, well-reasoned decisions.Ed Whelan: President Bush deserves great credit for his outstanding selection of John Roberts. He has fulfilled his promise to nominate someone who has excellent credentials and who understands the role of the judiciary in our constitutional republic.
Kathryn Jean Lopez: do love that the president has not established the O'Connor seat as a Women's Only seat. And, ahem, they said he couldn't do it.
Meanwhile, over at the liberal The Nation:
This is a real in-your-face selection by the president, and the Dems' response remains to be seen. Stalwart senators like Edward Kennedy, Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin can be expected to respond in kind but the Senate leader Harry Reid sounded an alarmingly cautious note when he told the New York Times, "The president has chosen someone with suitable legal credentials." Fortunately this fight should energize some potentially very large segments of society which would be affected by a Court that will threaten the future of legal abortions, affirmative action for minority groups, and other issues that many Americans have long taken for granted.
Michelle Malkin has the best summary of reaction from around the internet.In general, it looks like if confirmed, Roberts will not quite be another Scalia or Thomas, but we shouldn't have to worry that he'll become another Souter, Kennedy, or O'Conner, either.
Posted by Tom at 9:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 10, 2005
A New Plan for Funding
I think that we should spend more on national defense. To pick one example, we need at least two more aircraft carrier battle groups. We are dangerously low now at 12.
Traditionally, we would petititon our elected representatives and request that they increase funding. But that is so old fashioned.
Here's a better idea; let's go to the Supreme Court and see if we can get them order Congress to increase funding. All we need to do is hire some fancy lawyers to make our case. We can avoid all that messy stuff about making our case in the court of public opinion, and simply go to the Supreme Court. Why hire expensive lobbyists and media consultants when all we need are a few attorneys?
Think it can't happen? Think again. And look to see what the Kansas Supreme Court just did.
The justices ordered the Kansas legislature to spend more money on the public schools. Yup. Ordered them. As in no choice, you have to vote the way we tell you to. And we're telling you that it takes $853 million to make public education "adequate" in the State of Kansas.
In January, the Kansas Supreme Court determined that the legislature had failed to adequately fund public schools. The court further reasoned that Kansas "failed to provide suitable finance for students in middle-sized and large districts with a high proportion of minority and/or at-risk and special-education students," and ordered the legislature to remedy the situation. Last week's ruling puts a dollar figure on the remedy. The state education association, of course, is "encouraged" and thinks this "will help get the state on the road to full funding." That's hardly surprising in a ruling that reads like an activist's brief. "We cannot continue to ask current Kansas students to 'be patient,' " it states. "The time for their education is now."I'll ignore for now the B.S. statements by the state teachers union, er, "education association."
Watch for the left to instruct us that any criticism of the judiciary is "interference in their duties" or some other such hogwash.
Do we need any more reason to work hard to get strict constitutionalists on the bench?
Posted by Tom at 8:11 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 1, 2005
Who's Court?
The Supreme Court handed down a decision today that essentially said that executing people who committed their crimes while a juvenile was unconstitutional, violating the eighth amendment against cruel and unusual punishment.
Ok, fair enough. Maybe it's the right decision, maybe the wrong one. Reasonable people can disagree.
But then one read's the court's reasoning:
"International law?" you've got to be kidding. But here's what he wrote:
Justice Kennedy (who wrote the majority decision) relied on international law and practice to "confirm" his view that the juvenile death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. He also cited the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the U.S. signed only subject to the reservation of its right to impose the death penalty for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age.
It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty, resting in large part on the understanding that the instability and emotional imbalance of young people may often be a factor in the crime.Un, no, it's not proper, justice. You are on the United States Supreme Court. The law that you are to base your decisions on is the Constitution.But we have even worse from the good justice
When a juvenile offender commits a heinous crime, the state can exact forfeiture of some of the most basic liberties, but the state cannot extinguish his life and his potential to attain a mature understanding of his own humanity.To which Mark Levin retorts
All those gang members under the age of 18, some of the most vicious murderers known to law enforcement, will be pleased with this ruling. After they murder, they will now have time to "attain a mature understanding of (their) own humanity.Look, as I said at the beginning, maybe the death penalty is good, maybe not. Maybe we should keep it for minors and maybe not. Reasonable people can disagree. But I will not have our Supreme Court justices making their decisions on "international law" or "world opinion." It's hard to overstate the importance of the next appointments to the bench.And oh, I heard on the radio that beltway sniper suspect Lee Malvo's attorney was "elated" by the decision.
Posted by Tom at 4:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
