Emphathy
I predict two things will come out of the appointment process for the next Supreme Court Justice: (1) it will be a circus and (2) in the end, GOP attacks against the nominee will be widely viewed as silly. My reason for first prediction is history - this sort of thing generally is a circus these days. My reason for the second prediction is that the GOP efforts so far have been so silly as to be frivolous. So far, they seem to be pinning their hopes on convincing people that "emphathy" is a code word for judicial activistism. I don't think that charge will stick, mainly because it makes no sense to argue that judges are better off not being able to emphathize. This writer said it well:
Quote:
|
If Al Franken gets in, it won't be much of a battle, I doubt any in the 60-vote block would oppose Obama on the nomination. Without the filibuster, the GOP is toothless in the Senate. They can do the hand-wringing complain about everything as they cry like little girls thing, that's about it, but buddy, as shown in the Gallup results on the other thread, that just ain't workin'!
|
It will be tit for tat. You can bet that if the opportunity had arisen Bush would have packed the court with as many young ultra-conservatives as he could have gotten in. I think and hope that Obama will not be so vindictive and will nominate those jurists who hold out hope for reasonable interpretation of the law.
|
Unless the Supremes judge by the original intent of the Constitution there is no real Constitution. A "Living Constitution" is in fact, no Constitution.
I realize I am hopelessly out of step with "modern" culture. |
Quote:
remember the bill of rights? - amendments to the constitution, but pretty well regarded by most Americans |
The Repubs are emasculated right now - Obama could get Pelosi in as Chief Justice and it'd be easy to do.
|
Quote:
If there ever was an original intent behind the Constitution, it is impossible to know. It was ratified by 13 former colonies, one at a time, over a period of 2-1/2 years. More than 1,000 individual delegates voted on the ratification question. Do you think that every delegate or state that voted for ratification had exactly the same intent with respect to every part of the Constitution? I don't. Many of the leaders behind the Constitution, including my fellow Virginian James Madison, one smart son of a gun, believed that the Constitution needed to evolve. His original intent was that we not be bound by what people these days call original intent. So, I think any effort to try to stick with the original intent is futile and probably contrary to what Madison would have wanted. |
Quote:
Amendment is the procedure proivided for evolving--I'm OK with that--but apart from that, the document is meaningless. |
Quote:
The recent criticism of certain justices' reference to foreign law is misplaced. The Court has never applied foreign law. It applies US law. Difficulty sometimes arises in figuring out what US law is. In those cases the justices look to various sources, including foreign law, as persuasive authority. There is nothing inappropriate or lawless about it. Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Speaking of interpretation, did you notice that the word "sanction" can either mean "approve" or "penalize," depending on the context. I don't know what that has to do with our discussion, but I find it interesting. |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:50 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2024 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website