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 Issue
Now, 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 Senate
So 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:
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
