Harriet Withdrew Nomination

[cosmo]

Re: Harriet Withdrew Nomination

That's kinda the point -- it's an amorphous term that doesn't really have any specific meaning that has been invented by conservatives to describe judicial decisions with which they disagree. Complaining generally about "judicial activism" is equivalent, in my mind, to saying, "I have trouble thinking critically, so I just regurgitate the talking points I hear on Fox News."

As for the article you posted, it pretty clearly describes a "strict constuctionist" judicial philosophy. Why not just say that, rather than relying upon absurd, intentionally vague buzzwords. Are you concerned that the masses would not agree with you if they knew what they were really agreeing with?

As per the discussion of strict constructionist vs. activist; Who in their right mind believes it is best to put your trust in 9 judges that you think should hold an 'activist' view, meaning that you and I will never know what lies ahead in the years to come? That's a dangerous philosophy, indeed.


Would you rather rely on a judge who has a record of holding restraint? One that is known for applying the law, while keeping his personal views outside of the courtroom? Because that's the type of judge Alito is. And I can give you example after example. Or would you rather have a judge that puts his/her finger to the wind in order to find out 'how' he/she should reside on the issue.


Now you can respond yet again, to once again accuse me of relying on 'buzzwords', such as to imply that I am only regurgitating talking points from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.

This highlights another interesting thing about this whole confirmation process. The right's biggest fear is that Alito, or any nominee for that matter, will go into the confirmation hearings and say, "I believe Roe v Wade is wrong," or God forbid, "I will vote to overturn Roe v Wade if confirmed." Know why? Because that doesn't represent the views of mainstream America. If you are a conservative and you say that in your hearing, you're toast -- even Specter, a Republican and head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, would not vote to confirm you if you said that.

If you went in there and said, "I think Roe is settled law, was correctly decided and should remain in force," however, you'd have no problem. That is reality. Roe only matters if a nominee would overturn it, and the far right's number 1 fear is that he will go in and make it clear that he would overturn Roe, b/c that is the most likely path to him not being confirmed. That's a large part of the reason that the right was so pissed when Alito's mom came out and said, "Of course he's against abortion." Not because he's against aboriton, but because there is a public record of that fact.

Funny, that. John Roberts held that Roe is at precedent, and that he doesn't have any intention of overturning it, because it's settled law. Yet there was no outcry from the 'far right extremists'. Why is that? Surely, if we were looking for an 'out of the mainstream' judicial activist, we'd knock him out of the nomination process. Looking for a judge with 'mainstream' views means that you want a court that is aligned with the legislative process.

And I don't remember anyone being 'pissed' because Alito is against abortion. Quite the contrary. He has never allowed his personal views to guide his judicial decisions. That's the strength of his character, and again, he has shown that in his record.

Any more theories left for me to knock down?

[cosmo]

Re: Harriet Withdrew Nomination

"Of course he's against abortion." Not because he's against aboriton, but because there is a public record of that fact.

I may point out that, if you have any case in which Alito has imposed his personal policy decisions into his decisions, please do post away!

I will post something that suggests otherwise:



Judge Alito's most controversial opinion may be his partial dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which he voted to uphold the constitutionality of a spousal notification requirement for abortions. The three-judge panel in Casey unanimously upheld several abortion restrictions adopted by the Pennsylvania Legislature, including a parental-notification requirement and a 24-hour waiting period before a woman could obtain an abortion. While both policies may restrict the availability of abortion, neither constituted an "undue burden" on a woman's right to abort her fetus, as the Supreme Court subsequently held. Where Judge Alito differed with his colleagues was on whether it was an "undue burden" to require married women to notify their husbands prior to obtaining an abortion. This requirement was subject to several exceptions and was easily circumvented.

After a careful reading of the available Supreme Court precedent, Judge Alito concluded that this spousal notification was a constitutionally permissible limitation on a woman's right to an abortion. His opinion gives no hint as to whether he would personally support spousal notification, or other regulations. This is not a judge's role, he explained: "Whether the legislature's approach represents sound public policy is not a question for us to decide. Our task here is simply to decide whether [the law] meets constitutional standards." This is the hallmark of judicial restraint.

Placing Judge Alito's Casey dissent in the context of his other abortion-related decisions further demonstrates his commitment to law over predetermined policy outcomes. In Planned Parenthood v. Farmer (2000), he joined the court in striking down New Jersey's ban on partial-birth abortion as inconsistent with prevailing Supreme Court precedent. Five years earlier, he joined a majority opinion that deferred to an executive branch agency's interpretations of federal law, even though doing so meant blocking a state from limiting government funding of abortions. In short, his record is neither that of a "pro-life" or "pro-choice" judge, but of a "pro-law" judge.

[toasty]

Re: Harriet Withdrew Nomination

As per the discussion of strict constructionist vs. activist; Who in their right mind believes it is best to put your trust in 9 judges that you think should hold an 'activist' view, meaning that you and I will never know what lies ahead in the years to come? That's a dangerous philosophy, indeed.


Would you rather rely on a judge who has a record of holding restraint? One that is known for applying the law, while keeping his personal views outside of the courtroom? Because that's the type of judge Alito is. And I can give you example after example. Or would you rather have a judge that puts his/her finger to the wind in order to find out 'how' he/she should reside on the issue.

You're predictably changing the question. This is not about the difference between someone who gets it right and follows the law and someone who rules however the mood should so strike them on any particular day. This is also not about the difference between judges that allow their personal feeling to influence the way they rule and those that don't. It is the difference between strict constructionists, who believe that the Constitution should be construed exactly as written, and those who interpret the Constitution in light of the changing world in which we live. Many, many jurists subscribe to one philisophy or the other, and your position that one is wrong and the other is right is clearly a philosophical disagreement and not a legal one. I just wish you'd present it as such, because the way you currently approach the debate is demonstrative of the completely bullheaded and inflexible positions that have characterized the way Bush and his cronies have governed this nation, and led to the nation slowly pulling away from him.

For my part, I'd prefer a judge that recognizes that the Constitution is over 200 years old and that the world has changed some in that time. A judge that asks intelligent questions like, "would the framers of the Constitution approved or disapproved of this legislation regarding internet porn that they couldn't have possibly foreseen?" seems to be a good idea to me.

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Funny, that. John Roberts held that Roe is at precedent, and that he doesn't have any intention of overturning it, because it's settled law. Yet there was no outcry from the 'far right extremists'. Why is that?

I'll preface this by saying that I would have probably voted to approve Roberts, but with that said, did you watch the Roberts hearings? Roberts did that absurd little dance that pro-life nominees do where they are trying not to give their opinion on Roe v Wade. Roberts indicated that (paraphrasing):

1. Roe is settled precedent.
2. He has a healthy respect for precedent, and would not overturn it lightly.

Neither forecloses him from overturning it if and when the opportunity is presented.

The right didn't get upset because it understood the "code." The left didn't get up in arms because he was replacing Renquist, not O'Connor.

Looking for a judge with 'mainstream' views means that you want a court that is aligned with the legislative process.

Why do you want a Court that is aligned with the legislative process? What's the point of having a Court if they're just going to rubber stamp everything the legislature does? Dude, we've got these things called "separation of powers" and "checks and balances" in this country. Look into 'em...

And I don't remember anyone being 'pissed' because Alito is against abortion.

Reread my post. They're not irritated that he's against abortion -- in fact, the far right is probably elated. They're pissed that his mom said it, b/c it is now common knowledge, and gives fuel to the fire to block his confirmation.

[cosmo]

Re: Harriet Withdrew Nomination

You're predictably changing the question. This is not about the difference between someone who gets it right and follows the law and someone who rules however the mood should so strike them on any particular day.

Oh, but it is... It interrupts the legislative process, if the law as it is/was written is abused by activist judges such as Ginsburg and Breyer. Perhaps you should look out for Breyers explanation of how he sees the courts, and how he thinks they should change the constitution. There are debates between him and Scalia on CSPAN all of the time. And he gets killed by Scalia, as he seems to understand what the framers meant. The Federalist Papers and the writings at that time are cited frequently by him, and he explains this issue quite well.

For my part, I'd prefer a judge that recognizes that the Constitution is over 200 years old and that the world has changed some in that time.

Why? The constitution is a document. It's not supposed to grow and change via the courts. They are supposed to uphold the law, not change it. That's why there are other processes there to change, and amend it. The constitution is what it is. If you feel something should be changed, do it through the legislative process. This isn't rocket science.

A judge that asks intelligent questions like, "would the framers of the Constitution approved or disapproved of this legislation regarding internet porn that they couldn't have possibly foreseen?" seems to be a good idea to me.

That's what state legislatures are for. Period.

Why do you want a Court that is aligned with the legislative process? What's the point of having a Court if they're just going to rubber stamp everything the legislature does? Dude, we've got these things called "separation of powers" and "checks and balances" in this country. Look into 'em...

Re-read my post. You implied that we should have a 'mainstream' judge that represents 'mainstream' america. And I then told you that doing so interrupts what you also seem to acknowledge: the seperation of powers, and the checks and balances of the process.

Politicians and the people do that. Not judges.

Reread my post. They're not irritated that he's against abortion -- in fact, the far right is probably elated. They're pissed that his mom said it, b/c it is now common knowledge, and gives fuel to the fire to block his confirmation.

No one that I have heard from the right is 'pissed' that his mother told the press openly that he is against the procedure. Who cares? His record doesn't show that he implements his personal preferences, and we know that.


You're assuming that - and it then confirms what you want to believe: The right wingers are paranoid loonies that are trying to get a right-wing radical onto the bench.

[toasty]

Re: Harriet Withdrew Nomination

That's what state legislatures are for. Period.

Do you disagree with Marbury v Madison, the case that established the concept of judicial review? Your comments seem to suggest that you do.

I'm not going to go point by point on this one because your insistence upon using Scalia's ass cheeks as contact lenses makes rational discussion on this impossible.

[thesightless]

Re: Harriet Withdrew Nomination

waitaminute i just realized something............


LIBERALS HATE CONSERVATIVES AND CONSERVATIVES HATE LIBERALS, and those in office in the USA will no longer attempt to move forward, but will critique whatever current situation exists.agree to disagree and argue facts dammit. this is like trying to convince ayatolla khomeni to embrace jews.

[toasty]

Re: Harriet Withdrew Nomination

waitaminute i just realized something............


LIBERALS HATE CONSERVATIVES AND CONSERVATIVES HATE LIBERALS, and those in office in the USA will no longer attempt to move forward, but will critique whatever current situation exists.agree to disagree and argue facts dammit. this is like trying to convince ayatolla khomeni to embrace jews.

hate is probably too strong a word, but point taken.

[thesightless]

Re: Harriet Withdrew Nomination

no toasty, you have no clue, living here in NY, we get full coverage of the two main assholes of the democratic party, schumer and clinton. they do nothing for the state, all you see is them panning for future offices. they really are twats. and they never have said anything positive about the republicans, not even reagan after he died. im serious. they are the bane of the democratic party with thier ""you wont shut me up"" attitiude.

[cosmo]

Re: Harriet Withdrew Nomination

Do you disagree with Marbury v Madison, the case that established the concept of judicial review? Your comments seem to suggest that you do.

Personally, I strongly disagree with that decision. It paved the way for judicial supremacy. As a matter of fact, Hamilton warned about this in Federalist 78, and it was Marshall who made it a reality.

The fathers never meant to make the Supreme Court as powerful as it has been since that decision was made.

It's unconstitutional, imo. There is nothing in the constitution about this. It's bullshit. The Federalist Papers even warned of such power.

And that's what the fight is all about today.

[thesightless]

Re: Harriet Withdrew Nomination

you arent comparing 2005 to 1776 are you?

[cosmo]

Re: Harriet Withdrew Nomination

you arent comparing 2005 to 1776 are you?

No. We are fighting this fight because we gave the Supreme Court too much power back then.

[toasty]

Re: Harriet Withdrew Nomination

you arent comparing 2005 to 1776 are you?

The British are coming!!! The British are coming!!!

[toasty]

Re: Harriet Withdrew Nomination

No. We are fighting this fight because we gave the Supreme Court too much power back then.

wanna borrow my muzzle and carriage?

[toasty]

Re: Harriet Withdrew Nomination

no toasty, you have no clue, living here in NY, we get full coverage of the two main assholes of the democratic party, schumer and clinton. they do nothing for the state, all you see is them panning for future offices. they really are twats. and they never have said anything positive about the republicans, not even reagan after he died. im serious. they are the bane of the democratic party with thier ""you wont shut me up"" attitiude.

well, at least for me, hate is too strong a word...

[thesightless]

Re: Harriet Withdrew Nomination

look, ill express my opinion on this, if only to do just that.

after lots of pondering and simply sitting back and looking at society as a whole, i really think that we need conservatives in the supreme court. not the uber right, but legal right. the house and senate most definetly should be balanced to a degree, a 50-50 situation would be nice. the pres should be a liberal frontman, pushing the rights and policies of the liberal ideals. however, in terms of the courts, within the courts, i sy give the judges more power to throw things out, disregard BS and way more power in sentencing. for the US Supreme Courts, i think a more conservative court would be great if only to hold the power of the houses in check, disallowing frivolous bills and laws, and simply limiting the power if it becomes like it has in the last 2 admins, both were dominated by the GOP side ofd clinton and bush and took advantage. they have overstepped their authority tons. the system of checks and balances included the SC in the beginning, now it barely has a role. it seems to be more of the ""FINAL appeals court"" rather than part of our government.