| Author | Message | ||
     Ken Zeidner Citizen Username: Blackflag Post Number: 13 Registered: 9-2003 |
Bobk: I truly believe that Thomas is a great legal scholar; just read any of his opinions. In addition, he is very human, as witnessed by his decisions concerning affirmative action. Tom: What does an anti-abortion viewpoint have to do with upholding the law? Just because a nominee believes that abortion is morally wrong does not mean that he or she will fail to uphold Roe v. Wade and its progeny (remember the Casey decision). It was the era of the Bork and Thomas hearings that turned the Senate's job of "advise and consent" into an inquisatorial proceeding where a nominee must explain how he would rule on every possible issue that could come before him or her (arguably an ethical violation). And just to complete the thought, Roe was the worst case of judicial activism ever to come out of S. Ct. (except for maybe the recent case upholding Miranda). Regardless of how one feel's abput abortion, it is eminently an issue for each state's electorate. That's why we are a collection of "United" states. Each state is a mini-experiment, whereby if the experiment goes wrong, the populace elects new legislators or moves to a different state (I'm sure most Mwooders and SOrers can relate). Why does the Court feel the need to tell me how to act and feel. I like to express myself through local elections. What's worse, there is no textual support for the so-called "fundamental rights" (unless we live under a "penumbra" of rights as stated in Griswald v. Connecticut). Recently, there has just been too much disregard for states' issues (recall the recent sodomy case). And lest someone accuse me of being anti-this or -that), I am appalled by a statute that criminalizes homosexuality, and I believe (in most cases) that a woman is free to make reproductive choices, but the point is that like minds can differ. As such, these minds should battle it out at the polls, not have federal courts tell us what to do. If this happened, Senate confirmation hearings would not need to be the circuses they now are. Justices Thomas and Bork certainly understands this. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1455 Registered: 5-2001 |
well unfortunately Owen has shown that she's quite capable of judicial activism when it comes to abortion cases. Hence the opposition to her by the left. If she'd stuck to the statute she wouldn't be having this problem. But the fact that she didn't shows why she can't be trusted to uphold existing law on a higher level. Thomas may be a reliably conservative voice, but he is no great legal scholar, I'm sorry. Much as I vehemently disagree with them, Bork and Scalia are in fact great legal scholars; but Thomas I don't think brings anything new to the table. Why would a case upholding Miranda be judicial activism? I can understand why you would consider the original Miranda to be that, but upholding established law seems to be precisely the opposite. As for fighting it out in the polls, well that's ok insofar as it goes. But the Constitution does say that the state governments are subject to the Bill of Rights, too. And a lot of well-meaning thoughtful people believe that the Supremes overstepped their boundaries in the 2000 election, possibly nullifying the legitimate results of an election, thereby leveraging the power of conservatives. Thoughtful people can rightfully argue that Bush has no mandate to appoint extremely conservative judges. | ||
| luanda Citizen Username: Luanda Post Number: 107 Registered: 2-2002 |
The Cliff Harris Technique™ 1) Make a ridiculous assertion, hoping no one will notice how asinine it is. 2) Insult a few people who question the assertion. 3) Watch someone post actual facts and counter-examples proving the assertion is nonsense. 4) Abandon the thread. 5) Wait 4 weeks 6) Open a new thread, making the exact same silly assertion, hoping that no one will remember the earlier one. 7) Repeat | ||
| Straw that stirs the drink Citizen Username: Strawberry Post Number: 1363 Registered: 10-2001 |
one of the most interesting threads I've ever read on MOL. I actually learned quite a bit thanks to Cliff, Tom, Ashear, a few others. Than Luanda has to come aboard and take a kiddie shot at Cliff. Anyway, my two cents. Ashear's article seems to disprove Cliff's thought process, though, Cliff obviously has very valid points. In the end though, I believe Rckymtm's theory may be the home run. He writes: "On the other hand, maybe this is all just a brilliant move by the president -- he creates a diversion with a handful of nominees who promptly get labeled as "extreme" by the opposing party and filibustered -- while pushing through a record number of less-attention-grabbing nominees who over the years will have much more of an impact on the law than the 5 or 6 ultimate rejects." The bottom line is this, since I'm a bottom line guy. The Democrats have to walk a fine line on these confirmations because the American people are quite aware of these recent fillibusters, more so than they've ever been. As a result the American people will vote against Democrats who are now engaging in such practice. It's very hard to compare Clinton's term in office and Bush's using stats as Ashear and Cliff did while debating above. Keep in mind nine-eleven changed the mind set of Americans. More are paying attention now, and more want their voices heard. The 2004 election won't be like 2000. The voters are going to come out from all corners of the country this time. Many who do, probably don't know a whole heck of alot pre-2001. Also, many of these new "political followers" are getting their news from Television, which is now being dominated by Fox News. In other words, chances are they're buying into the idea that the Dems are stunting the Judicial confirmation process, and creating a dangerous society as a result. Final analysis: The Republicans are making the Democrats look bad on this one, real bad. I can remember when the air was clean and sex was dirty. -George Burns | ||
| duncanrogers Citizen Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 1027 Registered: 12-2001  |
Straw I think you miss the mark with the comment "The Democrats have to walk a fine line on these confirmations because the American people are quite aware of these recent fillibusters, more so than they've ever been." I dont think we are more aware, I think you are more aware cause of your political bent, but when the Republicans in the Senate were doing their own political thing with Democratic nominees those of a Democratic persuasion were acutely aware. www.freshwater-films.com | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1457 Registered: 5-2001 |
I really doubt that it matters much except to those of us who are already polarized, and it's obviously not changing any of our opinions. The Democrats look bad to folks like Straw and Cliff, but they're voting Republican in 2004 anyway. Likewise, I think the Republicans look creepy, but I'm voting Democrat anyway. | ||
| Straw that stirs the drink Citizen Username: Strawberry Post Number: 1366 Registered: 10-2001 |
Tom and Mr. Rogers (tee-hee) I obviously can't take a swipe at the Democrats because if I do I do so as a bias individual. However, my point is I'm not sure the majority of American voters today were really aware of Judicial stalling during the Clinton era. It just wasn't headline making news. For some reason it is today. That's all I'm saying. As a result., I believe these tactics can backfire in 2004. If I were a Democrat, I'm not sure using the filibuster so regularly today is the way I'd go. I can remember when the air was clean and sex was dirty. -George Burns | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1459 Registered: 5-2001 |
It is possible, but how much really? Besides people like you and me for whom, let's face it, it doesn't make any difference as to how we're going to vote, who else is there? I see three groups of people. One group will never hear or care about it, and will do what they were going to do anyway. The others will hear about it and want to know more. They'll read some background in the newsweeklies or on CNN or Fox or something, and they'll either decide that this is wrong -- there's no reason Pickering and Owen should be held back -- and vote Republican. But the others will decide the opposite -- the Pickering and Owen are bad choices and the Dems are right for stopping them -- and vote Democratic. Bear in mind, a good majority of Americans are pro-choice on some level, and Owen's antics won't necessarily sit well once they do their due diligence; and a huge majority are pro-civil rights, and Pickering's siding with the perpetrator in a cross-burning case is going to be hard to spin positively. This is all slicing the salami pretty thin, though. The big issues are going to be the economy, terror and Iraq. | ||
| Pierce Butler Citizen Username: Pierce_butler Post Number: 119 Registered: 6-2003 |
Ken Zeidner, Thomas probably has advocated overturning more Supreme Court precedent than any Justice in the last thirty years, including some cases that are over a century old. Isn't this a bit of "activism?" And it's no answer to say that all those cases were wrongly decided in the first place. The principle of stare decisis assumes that even erroneous decisions will be kept in place. There's nothing like Being and Nothingness. | ||
| Straw that stirs the drink Citizen Username: Strawberry Post Number: 1368 Registered: 10-2001 |
"The big issues are going to be the economy, terror and Iraq." No doubt..Also think about the way things have changed since the 1990s. Once upon a time the argument could be made the abortion issue was the number issue other than the economy that influenced public opinion. Now, it's possible abortion fails to make the top five. I can remember when the air was clean and sex was dirty. -George Burns | ||
| Ken Zeidner Citizen Username: Blackflag Post Number: 14 Registered: 9-2003 |
Tom: I consider the case upholding Miranda to be activistic for the following: 1) The Supreme Court had never before said Miranda was constitutionally required; 2) Congress had overturned Miranda by statute in the late '60's; and 3) The case upholding Miranda said that the warnings were constitutionally required because it had been foisted upon the states, thus meaning it had to be constitutionally required (talk about circular reasoning). As for the Constitution saying that the Bill of Rights applies to the states, it says no such thing. Justice Marshall in the early 1800's held that it applied only to Congress. This is clearly supported by the Federalist Papers, the Constitutional Conventions, and the text of the amendments (e.g., "Congress shall make no law). It was until the activist Courts of the 1930s-60s that held that the Bill of Rights applied to the states through the 14th Amendment. Finally, as for the 2000 election, it is too complicated an issue to discuss in this forum, but many correct-thinking people know that the Florida Supreme Court overstepped its bounds. Pierce: Let me know what cases you are talking about. I just would say that stare decisis can only go too far. A wrongly decided case can only be stretched so far before it must be overturned. Unless, of course, you think Plessy's "separate but equal" doctrine should still be the law. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1465 Registered: 5-2001 |
I stand corrected on the Bill of Rights; but the doctrine of incorporation has held up pretty well, and it makes sense. I mean, did the framers deny Congress the ability to infringe on freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc. because they wanted to give the states a chance? What good is a national guarantee of freedom of religion if the New Jersey legislature can prosecute you for being a Catholic? | ||
| themp Citizen Username: Themp Post Number: 274 Registered: 12-2001 |
In 1997, former Senate Judiciary Committee chair Orrin Hatch, who now protests Democratic Senators' suggestions that the judicial ideology and philosophy of nominees be carefully reviewed, emphasized the need for Senators to "ascertain the jurisprudential views a nominee will bring to the bench" through "extensive" questioning and investigation, with "no set time" to complete the process. "No set time" for some nominees meant that they waited years without even being granted a hearing by the Judiciary Committee. Many others were prevented from coming before the Senate. Then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott was quite blunt in 1998. "Should we take our time on these federal judges?" Lott asked rhetorically. "Yes. Do I have any apologies? Only one: I probably moved too many already." | ||
| Cliff Harris Citizen Username: Cowboy Post Number: 119 Registered: 9-2003 |
"Insult a few people who question the assertion." Where? | ||
| luanda Citizen Username: Luanda Post Number: 114 Registered: 2-2002 |
Cliff A nice change of subject to avoid dealing with the actual issue. But, since you asked, here: "tom, why so bitter? Can't you handle the truth? ... I think you are showing signs of increasing paranoia. Be careful, relax and maybe see a doctor." | ||
| Cliff Harris Citizen Username: Cowboy Post Number: 121 Registered: 9-2003 |
Since when is showing concern and compassion for a fellow poster been insulting? Luanda, you may not agree with me, but you may learn something in the process. I continue to believe that our judicial system is being held captive by a handful of Democratic Senators making inappropriate use of the concept of filibustering. Their motives are wrong. They have a responsibility and they are abusing their privildges. And to point the finger back at the past and the Republicans does not make it right. | ||
| luanda Citizen Username: Luanda Post Number: 116 Registered: 2-2002 |
The shorter Cliff Harris: "If my guys do it, it's admirable. If your guys do it, it's inappropriate." | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1468 Registered: 5-2001 |
I'm waiting for Cliff to admit that the Republican's delaying tactics of the '90s were inappropriate. | ||
| duncanrogers Citizen Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 1048 Registered: 12-2001 |
you will be old and gray Tom before that happens "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" Wayne Gretzky | ||
| Cliff Harris Citizen Username: Cowboy Post Number: 125 Registered: 9-2003 |
Here you go tom. Yes, the delay in judicial appointments during the Clinton administration was inappropriate. In fact, that is the core to this whole thread. It was wrong for the Republican Senators then and it is wrong for the Democratic Senators now. That is the major point. What is different are the tactics and the lengths toward which the Democrats are now going. That is what is wrong, don't you agree? And luanda, as far as I am concerned, it is not my guys and your guys once you have been elected. "The King is dead, long live the King." |
