.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Heavy-Handed Politics

"€œGod willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world
without the United States and Zionism."€ -- Iran President Ahmadi-Nejad

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

SUPREME COURT



A pretty good article can be found here that analyzes Pres. Bush's latest choice for the SCOTUS. Much of the to-do over Ms. Miers as his choice has been criticized by many on the right because she did not go to a top level law school. This is such a disappointing position to take, because it is an elitist position to take. It should be obvious now, if it wasn't already, that the left does not have a monopoly on elitism.

What's more, is the right has been very critical of the left for having a litmus test; and now they have done, and are now doing, the same ... applying a litmus test for this nomination.

This is another good opinion piece listing 10 reasons why Miers is a good pick.

There are different degrees of conservatism just as there are varying degrees of liberalism. Again, as tempting as it may be, applying a litmus test, i.e, "how conservative is she?" is not a good way to to pick your nominee. Someone who is right of center, but maybe not as far right as you would like, but has a constructionist view of the constitution, and is firmly against judicial activism, should be acceptable to the right ... a hell of alot better than a Sandra Day O'Connor.

If she is against the idea of using overseas laws and cases to base U.S. cases; if she is against the recent Kelo eminent domain decision; if she ends up voting in agreement with Justices Scalia and Thomas 80% of the time; if she is against the twisted and perverted form that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution has taken, then this is a victory for the right.

3 Comments:

  • Quite right H-H! In fact, the politics of a true constitutional constructionists would not matter. That is the whole point!

    By Anonymous Anotmo, at 9:10 AM  

  • Indeed, anotmo. That is exactly the whole point. You succinctly summed up my position.

    I want a Justice who can put aside their PERSONAL beliefs, put aside their political ideologies, and rule on the point of law.

    MY preference is someone who is a constructionist, then as you say, "politics wouldn't matter".

    This idea that the Constitution is a living, breathing document, and needs to be redefined constantly as we "progress" or "evolve" is garbage.

    I am going to post this thought as I was thinking about this last night and had intended to post it today - then I saw your comment...and well it kind of fit right into our discussion.

    By Blogger HeavyHanded, at 9:40 AM  

  • Yes, and this is just one more example of why it is so difficult and frustrating to ‘discuss’ such matters with Liberals. We argue principle and they talk politics. I recall Judge Bork trying to make the point with his detractors that the judicial activism they now admire can and has in the past been used to promote positions with which the Left would strongly disagree. The Dred Scott case is one example. It fell on deaf ears because it is not the process of judicial activisms with which Bork’s critics were concerned but rather its current execution and outcome. Politics, not principle.

    The real irony is that I once actually heard a Liberal make reference to the Dred Scott case in regard to judicial activism but only because he got it exactly wrong. He understood the decision to have protected Mr. Scott rather than to have sent him and his wife back to their ‘owners’.

    By Anonymous Anotmo, at 10:09 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home