Speed of Descent, Part 2

>> Friday, May 8, 2009

Barry Obumble has already shown some level of contempt for the Constitution, as demonstrated in audio clips from an interview on Chicago radio during his tenure as an Illinois state senator. Showing remarkable consistency, he also has expressed a poor understanding of the role of a Supreme Court Justice by proclaiming his nominees would possess "empathy" for certain groups of people. Thomas Sowell, though lacking the creds that impress sophisticated intellectuals like Geoffrey, has three spot on essays that explore the subject of the SCOTUS. Here are the first, the second, and the third.

These fine pieces have provoked a slight shift in my thinking regarding the impact of an Obama nominee being confirmed, particularly as regards the speed of American Descent as a result of such a confirmation. There is a push for Barry to select a homosexual for the bench. Should that happen, we'll see the same results as we did with homosexual activists within the APA voting as to whether homosexuality should remain on the list of mental illnesses. In other words, we'll see less objectivity if "empathy" is a requirement. This is totally contrary to the quality a Supreme Court Justice is to have. A Justice is to be without regard for the litigants of a case and judge merely on which argument more closely aligns with a strict and objective understanding of the US Constitution. That is, cold, blind justice for all.

Republicans, and any thoughtful and objective Democrats, entrusted with the task of vetting SCOTUS nominees, need to grill untill well done. If they conduct their interviews properly, the responses of the nominees will convict them sufficiently to override the imbalance of libs to conservatives, and their nominations will be pulled or they will decline the invitation themselves. Perhaps even enough rubber stampers will be convinced to vote against confirmation. We can only hope, otherwise the stain of this administration may plague us for many years to come.

UPDATE: Here's a fourth column by Sowell on the topic. This one speaks to a likely end game.

32 comments:

Feodor May 8, 2009 at 12:58 PM  

Since you adhere to strict understanding of the Constitution, I can assume you arm yourself only with muskets?

Anything else would be a modern interpretation.

Al-Ozarka May 8, 2009 at 2:22 PM  

FeoDORK, you are truly a dumb-ass.


"Thomas Sowell, though lacking the creds that impress sophisticated intellectuals like Geoffrey..." - MA

Could this mean that our boy, J-Off is a raaaAAAAcist?

After all, any African-american who holds conservative views MUST be an Uncle Tom, right?

Feodor May 8, 2009 at 2:51 PM  

Izard, that Sowell holds "conservative views" indicates that he has a certain "empathy" with a particular group of people who share a describable political stance in the world.

By the nature of his own arguments, then, he is unfit for the Supreme Court. And by the nature of these of these arguments, so is everyone else. For almost of us want a justice "to do justice" (Sowell's story about Learned Hand) and almost the other half want a justice to not think about it and just "uphold the law" (Holmes response to Hand in Sowell's story).

If you want to say that Homes is clearly right, well that is clearly your right. And you have company, too: all those who share your legal empathies.

Having a problem with such vague language as "empathy with groups" is not enough of a foundation to mount any credible intellectual argument.

He just can't see his blindness to his own empathies.

(Now this, by the way, is a great example of walking right into it.)

Feodor May 8, 2009 at 3:22 PM  

Dollars to doughnuts you didn't read the articles.

Mark May 8, 2009 at 7:18 PM  

As I mentioned in a similar post over at my place (although I didn't link to anyone else's opinion pieces), Empathy has no place in a Supreme Court ruling.

The role of a Supreme Court Justice is to make decisions based solely on the Constitution of the United States, regardless of gender. Regardless of ethnicity. Regardless of emotions. Regardless of feelings.

And, an associate Justice of the Supreme Court is not charged to create law, change law, or to legislate from the bench. Only to rule on whether a law is Constitutional or not.

If Obama appoints an associate Supreme Court Justice based on any other reason he is violating his oath of office.

If Obama violates his oath of office he must be impeached and removed from office.

Feodor May 8, 2009 at 8:51 PM  

Mark whiffs on the point entirely, choosing to swallow, instead, a gingerbread house built on the sand of "empathy."

As if Alito and Roberts do not have empathy for certain legal positions.

Marshall Art May 8, 2009 at 9:45 PM  

Feodor once again demonstrates that quantity of books read, number of AP courses taken nor even high grade point average don't equate with smarts. For all the common sense and insight Sowell possesses, I'm surprised anyone would have trouble getting the point. But Feodor gets the GKS award for missing it.

First of all, because it stares me in the face as I type this, I'll address Feo's first ridiculous comment. How much book learing does it take to walk away believing the founders had no concept of technological advancements, especially with a Ben Franklin churning out practical applications of new discoveries every other day? To assume the founders never considered that advances in firearms might someday occur is such a mind blower to me. I think it's better when you hide your lack of understanding with your cryptic prose. Your inanity doesn't shine as brightly then.

As to the Sowell articles, it is true that he would have empathy for conservative views and proposals. Why wouldn't he, especially when bright people see the superiority of conservative views and proposals. And it is also true that every Justice ever confirmed leaned one way or the other.

But in the vetting process, and during the confirmation hearings, the ability of the nominee to lay aside those leanings is what is to be considered, not that they lean in any direction. Sowell's point in relating anecdotes regarding Holmes was to illustrate how one particular justice did that very well. The best kind of justice would never vote in favor of Roe v Wade, not because he might oppose abortion, indeed he might approve, but because there is no Constitutional support for the pro-abortion argument.

When Barry picks someone specifically because they DO have empathy for one group or other, he is NOT thinking in terms of the job description of a Supreme Court Justice. Instead, like any activist judge who legislates from the bench, he's ignoring the very easy to understand criteria in favor of agendas he favors.

Of course, Barry continues to show he's nowhere near as bright as his worshippers like to believe and this is just another example of that. That's a major assumption on my part, but the alternative is that he is consciously abusing his position.

As for Alito and Roberts, it would interesting for Feo to show how either could be justly accused of basing decisions on anything more than their expert understanding of the US Constitution.

Mark May 9, 2009 at 7:05 AM  

Feodor, you idiot!

I didn't whiff. I hit the ball so far over your head you didn't see where it went.

RE: "As if Alito and Roberts do not have empathy for certain legal positions."

The point is: It doesn't matter if Alito and Roberts have empathy!They have to rule according to the Constitution, even if they don't like it. That is the role of a Justice, Dummy.

Feodor May 9, 2009 at 1:56 PM  

"To assume the founders never considered that advances in firearms might someday occur is such a mind blower to me."

If one of the founders had "considered" rifling, he could have made a mint. If one of the founders had considered a six shot self-loading chamber, he could have made a mint. If one of the founders had considered automatic firing, he could have....

If one of the founders had considered nuclear fission, we may not have been.

You're an idiot. Your hypotheticals are comic book inventions to hide your empty reason. The founders did not write the second amendment thinking, "and just wait until the militia can outfit themselves in Kevlar."

Dreaming in their smoking rooms of a reflective microscope has not relation to writing constitutional law.

Marshall, your naivete is what makes argumentation impossible. But I'll move on.
______

"... especially when bright people see the superiority of conservative views and proposals. "

Biased opinion, otherwise known as empathy, otherwise known as the legal principles, so called, of Clarence Thomas.
_______

"The best kind of justice would never vote in favor of Roe v Wade, not because he might oppose abortion, indeed he might approve, but because there is no Constitutional support for the pro-abortion argument."

Thank you, Justice Taney. ("African Americans, being considered of an inferior order and altogether unfit to associate with the white race at the time the Constitution was drafted, could not be considered citizens of the United States.)
______

"... it would interesting for Feo to show how either could be justly accused of basing decisions on anything more than their expert understanding of the US Constitution."

"[Alito] has demonstrated hostility toward the principles undergirding a woman’s CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT to govern her own reproductive choices – most notably in the Third Circuit’s attempt to limit or overturn Roe v. Wade in the context of the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case. In addition, he has issued a number of troubling opinions that seek to undermine established civil rights law, especially in the areas of gender and race, and that seek to severely limit the federal government’s ability to protect its citizens. Alito claimed that the federal government could not apply the Family and Medical Leave Act to state employees, A DECISION EFFECTIVELY REVERSED BY THE SUPREME COURT, and even argued that Congress could not enact a ban on the possession of machine guns."

You want a machine gun, MA? Alito's your man. He has an empathy for the NRA.

Empathy for the NRA.

And argues his empathies.

And this took me three minutes. Please don't ask for more of my weekend time to document how naive and unreflective your challenges are.

Feodor May 9, 2009 at 2:19 PM  

And Mark, once you let us know how you understand the Dred Scott decision and on what basis you agree or disagree then we will decide whether you are grown up enough to hold a bat in your hand. We don't want further damage to that "special" bald noggin of yours.

Jim May 9, 2009 at 3:03 PM  

"When Barry picks someone specifically because they DO have empathy for one group or other, he is NOT thinking in terms of the job description of a Supreme Court Justice."

Hmm, I just read the Constitution again and for the life of me I can't find any job description of a Supreme Court Justice. Nor can I find anything that says how the President should pick them, what considerations he should have, how they should be vetted, or how the Senate should advise and consent.

Thus it all becomes a matter or practice, not Constitutional mandate. The President can use any criteria he wishes to select a nominee, and the Senate can use any criteria they want to vote yea or nay.

Mark May 9, 2009 at 3:32 PM  

Once again, Feodor has proven his idiocy. There is no "woman’s CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT to govern her own reproductive choices."

It's not in the Constitution, Feodor. It simply isn't in there.

Idiot.

Mark May 9, 2009 at 3:35 PM  

Feodor, you are getting much too easy to defeat in an argument.

The Dred Scott decision was reached by precisely the kind of Justices Obama would appoint, namely activist Justices with an agenda, who didn't rule according to the Constitution, but by their own personal prejudices.

Why don't you run along now, back to the Daily Kos or wherever it is you get such ridiculous nonsensical arguments?

Mark May 9, 2009 at 3:57 PM  

BTW, Feodor, the Dred Scott decision was reached by a Supreme Court headed by A southern Democrat slave owner, who was appointed by a Southern Democrat president.

Both of them had a stake in promoting the Dred Scott decision. This may be the first example of Democrats abusing their Judicial power to further their own ideology.

It is Democrats, Feodor, who have discriminated against the black people throughout history, and the Republicans who have fought for their equality. Democrats historically have always come down on the wrong side of the moral fence.

Mark May 9, 2009 at 4:14 PM  

Jim, You've asked a very good question, and, according to my research, The Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to check, if necessary, the actions of the President and Congress.

It can tell a President that his actions are not allowed by the Constitution. It can tell Congress that a law it passed violated the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, no longer a law. It can also tell the government of a state that one of its laws breaks a rule in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress, and the highest law of all — the Constitution.The Supreme Court is like a referee on a football field. The Congress, the President, the state police, and other government officials are the players. Some can pass laws, and others can enforce laws. But all exercise power within certain boundaries. These boundaries are set by the Constitution.

Nowhere does any of my research say the choice of Justices is to be based on empathy or gender or ethnicity, nor are the decisions they make to be based on those concepts.

Feodor May 9, 2009 at 4:32 PM  

Okay, Mark, no bats for you.

Read a book on judicial review and Marbury v Madison.

The Supreme Court is the chief, though not sole, branch of government that decides the meaning of the Constitution. Thus, in Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey, the Supreme Court decided that a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion as "grounded in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

This is Constitutional Law. Now, like anything in the Constitution, it can be changed, given that the majority of we the people -- the authority which makes law effective -- act to do so.

Case in point, the Dred Scott Case.

Where Justice Roger Taney wrote the majority opinion not on his "empathy" but on what was understood by the Founding Fathers as Constitutional Law.

That is why he wrote: African Americans, being considered "of an inferior order and altogether unfit to associate with the white race" at the time the Constitution was drafted, could not be considered citizens of the United States."

In your words, he ruled "according to the Constitution, even if they [he] don't like it."

The Supreme Court and the nation has since found that deciding on the very words of the Constitution and its intent was wrong.

Because the Constitution was wrong on slavery.

Should I repeat that? The Supreme Court and the nation determined that the Constitution was wrong.

An understanding of the demands of justice -- not a strict interpretation -- brought the Supreme Court and the nation to that point.

That Taney didn't like it is demonstrated by his private papers where he describes his disgust for slavery and his decision to manumit his slaves.

What he should have done is what Judge Learned Hand suggested to Justice Holmes in Sowell's articles: do justice.
______

Now, let's see where you are at. Doesn't know constitutional law, doesn't know justice either.

Two strikes.

I'll let your ignorance on Taney go, since we recognize that you are only doing your homework on Dred Scott today.

Careful, Mark, you're almost out and we haven't even given you a bat yet.

You're over near the stands watching the older brother play and you're swinging your arms knocking over mom's Slurpee.

Feodor May 9, 2009 at 5:20 PM  

So, Mr. "Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress, and the highest law of all — the Constitution"...

... where do you stand on the Supreme Court's decision -- decided solely on the wording of the Constitution -- regarding Dred v Scott?


Or are you ready to confess that the definition of the word, "amendment," and the meaning of a "Constitutional Amendment" is coming to you late in life?



(Hint: "amendment" means "change," as in a change in understanding the law or even the Constitution, as in a black fellow is a person and a citizen, not 3/5 of a person and not a citizen.)

Jim May 9, 2009 at 7:41 PM  

Mark said "Nowhere does any of my research say the choice of Justices is to be based on empathy or gender or ethnicity, nor are the decisions they make to be based on those concepts."

Nowhere does it say that the the choice of Justices be based on ANYTHING AT ALL. Certainly not in the Constitution. This leaves quite a bit of latitude for the President, don't you think?

Could be empathy. Could be alma mater. Could be his brother-in-law.

Marshall Art May 9, 2009 at 8:38 PM  

Feo,

You give me great entertainment in your failed attempts to pose as astute and intelligent. Let's look at your mistakes:

"If one of the founders had "considered" rifling, he could have made a mint...etc."

Perhaps you can show where in crafting the 2nd Amendment the founders considered the type of "arms" they felt the avergae law abiding citizen had the right to bear. Their concern was self-defense and the individual's right to arm himself in a manner by which he felt he could best execute that right, because that right was a natural one. Whether or not a founder could make a mint on developing a better firearm is not only irrelevant, but hysterical by your belief it matters. Talk about idiocy and naivete!

"Biased opinion, otherwise known as empathy, otherwise known as the legal principles, so called, of Clarence Thomas."

I don't deny my bias at all. It is attracted by the truth and logic of time tested principles. It does not, however, demand I ignore written law as it is stated. Indeed it insists I don't. Such is true of the best justices such as Holmes, and for that matter Alito and Roberts.

"Thank you, Justice Taney. ("African Americans, being considered of an inferior order and altogether unfit to associate with the white race at the time the Constitution was drafted, could not be considered citizens of the United States.)"

But that's not what the Constitution says. It says they are 3/5 of a person. The argument at the time was whether or not they could be considered both citizen and property at the same time. The South considered them property in practice, but wanted them considered persons legally in order to increase their representation. The non-slave states saw through this ruse and the compromise was a 3/5 notion in order to get the document ratified at all. So Taney's decision isn't based on accuracy at all. If it was, then the most he could say is that blacks were only 3/5 fit to associate and/or 3/5 a citizen. In any case, he was ruling on his best interpretation of the Constitution and that is proper. If the Constitution is then considered wrong or incomplete or unjust, then the people amend it, not the Supreme Court.

In the case of Roe v Wade, even liberal law people know the decision is woefully flawed even though they like the outcome. It was NOT decided by a strict interpretation, but by the preference of the justice who wrote the decision.

I've lost count of strikes, but I believe your out already. If not, the next piece seals it.

""[Alito] has demonstrated hostility toward the principles undergirding a woman’s CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT to govern her own reproductive choices..."

This is funny. First off, you're arguing over a contested decision, one shown to be lacking in Constitutional support. Secondly, Alito is still trying to argue according to the Constitution and not by personal agenda, even if he's pro-life. In short, you're not showing how his personal bias is coming into play after not showing how in impacted the Roe v Wade decision. In addition, what follows your above stupidity is also lacking in any support for your notion that he interprets based on his own personally held beliefs. That a decision might be controversial (and that depends upon the person reading the decision) doesn't mean HE is legislating from the bench. So to summarize, I asked for proof, and you gave me crap. Fortunately my expectations matched the outcome. Your arguments sound like three minutes worth of thought, but then that's what I've come to expect from you.

Further, in your remarks to Mark, you make other errors. The Supreme Court is indeed the sole interpreter of the Constitution as regards the constitutionality of a law. But that doesn't mean that their interpretations are correct. As such, they were totally incorrect in the Roe v Wade decision. This means that any amending needs elementary wording so as not to confuse the liberal elements of the court. Reasonable people know there is no such protection for women who wish to kill their own kids.

I'll give you this, though I'm not even sure you're working from this perspective: The Court decides based on what the Constitution actually says, and then the people decide if they can live with the outcome. If they can't, then the amendment process begins and THE PEOPLE decide if the Constitution is wrong or needs changing or clarifying. The Justices are NOT in the business of amending it by their personal beliefs and when they do so they have abused their position.

Thus, to select a judge because they hold a specific opinion on an issue is to corrupt the bench, whether it's spelled out in law or not. (That's for Jimmy) Though the prez can pick for any reason, to do so other than that the candidate is capable (and has a history of) ruling by the written law alone is an obvious attempt to grab power. The Senate is the checks and balances block on such a move and it is through the confirmation process that such picks be voted down.

Unfortunately for the nation at this time, the Dems have the majority and the right needs to convince enough of them so that such blatant attempts at fascism never occurs.

So Feodor, do you have anything better? So far, you ain't got game at all. Fraud.

Marshall Art May 9, 2009 at 8:39 PM  

The fun part of this is that I'm not even that good.

Mark May 9, 2009 at 10:12 PM  

Feodork. You missed the point, as usual.

I don't know how much plainer I can be.

You are an idiot.

Sometimes, activist judges, like Justice Hugo Black, for instance, who were appointed for the wrong reasons, judge on their personal feelings regardless of constitutionality, such as the mythical right to privacy cited when they made the unconstitutional decision on Roe v Wade.

But, since you don't seem to understand common sense, I will make it simple for you:

Justices are not supposed to rule on anything based on empathy. They are not to be appointed solely on their race, gender, or on whether or not they know what it's like to be young, old, pregnant, disabled, poor, or whatever else Obama wants to base his appointment decision on.

They are supposed to rule impartially on the rule of law established by the United States Constitution.

They are to be appointed based on their adherence to the Constitution. Period. No other criteria is required or should be allowed.

Now, if whoever Obama appoints will rule impartially according to the Constitution, and just happens to be Hispanic, or black, or a woman, also, that would be acceptable to those of us who insist a justice should be a strict constructionist.

But, not so. He has made it clear that the only criteria he will consider in his appointment is the prospective judge's ability to empathize, along with gender and race.

He has never said he will consider their ability to judge impartially on the U.S. Constitution.

If he does that, he will be violating his oath of office, as I said. Let me make that part clear, too:

Appointing a judge based solely on gender, and ethnicity, and empathy, does not protect the Constitution.

It does not preserve the Constitution.

It does not defend the Constitution.

Thus, if he appoints a justice for the reasons he has already promised he would, he is violating his oath of office.

Now, I've made it as clear as I possibly can. If you wish to argue further, go find someone who has the time to listen to your idiocy. I'm done with you.

Feodor May 9, 2009 at 10:13 PM  

What did you have to drink tonight, Marshall?

I ask because you're not at your best and you'll realize it the morning.

I'll keep it short.

1. The foolish examples of guns stems are created from your asinine suggestion that the Founders envisioned innovation when writing the Constitution. Who is writing law today for the Fusion Gun?

You remember these words, don't you?

"To assume the founders never considered that advances in firearms might someday occur..."

That you recognized the irrelevance and hysterical pleases me since they are elucidations of your stance.

By the way, how do you justify the illegality of private ownership of innovations such as a rocket grenade or a machine gun when you offer such a supple and well-reasoned principle of law like this:

"the individual's right to arm himself in a manner by which he felt he could best execute that right, because that right was a natural one..."

2. That you not only agree with Taney's decision but think he did not go far enough in upholding the inhumanity of the Constitution -- which he himself recognized -- is not only sad, it is disgustingly sad that you would enslave yourself to a doctrine whose means tend to such ends.

You are, indeed, a son of Bork.

Brown v Board must be a travesty for you.

3. When you say that Roe v Wade was decided "by the preference of the justice who wrote the decision" you are glaringly factually wrong. It takes a plurality of justices to make a decision. One doesn't count.

4. "you're arguing over a contested decision"

Well, duh. Taxation is still contested. Idiots contest all sorts of things. You're a card carrying member. Another irrelevant and hysterical suggestion for which I will forego examples so as not to confuse you further.

"one shown to be lacking in Constitutional support"

Says you with your self-justifying empathies. Not the Supreme Court, thankfully.

That this is how Constitutional law is made, in the marketplace of legal ideas, interests, "empathies" as it were is how it has always been in democracies. It is how it is now.

That you deny reality is reflective of how you deny many things that true of human reality that is limited by having not golden tablets of absolute truth to count on. The Bible is necessarily interpreted, the Constitution is necessarily interpreted (shotgun fine, tank out).

That you deny these things is either due to drink (which may be true tonight) or due to a severe lack of intellectual, ethical, and moral honor.

Which is true for all the months I've read you.

Feodor May 9, 2009 at 10:26 PM  

Dense Mark,

That you present your stance as divinely revealed truth that cannot be opposed is insanity in the psychotic. Since you are not psychotic, the other option is limited.

A tree does not think it can be cut down either. Or a tree does not really think. The last is my real point.

We can take your penultimate summing up and turn it around thus;

"Appointing a judge based solely on gender, and ethnicity, and empathy, does not protect the Constitution."

The "empathy" point can be seen as the reason then Senator Obama voted against nominee Alito when Obama said:

"I have found that in almost every case, he consistently sides on behalf of the powerful against the powerless; on behalf of a strong government or corporation against upholding Americans' individual rights."

In other words, Obama finds Alito too solidly empathetic with no demonstrated ability to be even-handed.


Of course, I could have been shorter and simply said that the nomination of Harriet Myers was a pick for gender.... and a buddy who covered up torture.

Feodor May 9, 2009 at 10:29 PM  

And no, Marshall, you're not that good.

But it's not fun for the rest of us. Being drunk is an idiosyncratic experience that cannot be shared between people, simply joined by having one's own.

Which I now feel like doing to medicate the sadness of such stupidity in my own countrymen.

Marshall Art May 10, 2009 at 2:18 AM  

I could down a pint of Jack and still make more sense, understand and explain the relevant point of a discussion better than your faux sophistication. Thus, I really have to agree with Mark that you're an idiot. I don't mean that as an ad hominem, but I fear most psychologists would agree. You're an idiot in the clinical sense. So let me correct you yet again, because helping people is what I'm all about:

"1. The foolish examples of guns stems are created from your asinine suggestion that the Founders envisioned innovation when writing the Constitution."

My point, which even a small child could decipher, was that only a clinical idiot would assume that when the founders crafted the 2nd Amendment, that the world would go on unchanged from that point on. The idea was self-defense, not any restriction on what a law-abiding citizen could possess for that self-defense. Further, though I personally have no fear of a sane, law-abiding person owning any form of weapon, only a clinical idiot would try to use the "how about a canon" argument, as if anyone has a desire to drag one around as they go about their daily business. And considering a canon isn't in the same class as "firearm" and is instead "artillery", you expose yourself as a buffoon for the mere mention of it.

Fusion gun. What an idiot.

"2. That you not only agree with Taney's decision but think he did not go far enough in upholding the inhumanity of the Constitution..."

Totally improper interpretation of my comments. Read them again and do so slowly, sounding out the words as you go. I never said I agreed with Taney, nor did I say I thought he didn't go far enough. What I said was that the Constitution didn't say what he said it did, corrected him, gave him a better argument based on that correction and only supported him based on the assumption that he actually thought the Constitution says what he thought it said. If he ruled based on the belief that the Constitution was unjust, he was wrong to do so because that's not his job. He's to rule on the law according to whether it aligns with the Constitution as written. The only thing to which a Justice can appeal is anything that demonstrates the intent of the founders when they wrote the Constitution, and precedent of earier rulings, not one's own opinion of the Constitution itself.

"It takes a plurality of justices to make a decision."Duh! No kidding. Funny, though how they always refer to one particularly opinion, but not to the others in agreement. The point still stands as strongly as it did before this inane and unnecessary point.

"4. "you're arguing over a contested decision""

The point here is that Alito wasn't making a call based on his opinion of abortion, but on whether or not there was Constitutional basis for the ruling. THAT'S where any hostility he might have had was directed. And again, even liberal law folk have agreed the Roe v Wade decision was bad law. So even if half the court agrees with it, it doesn't mean it's the right call, only that it's the one with which we must live until saner heads prevail.

"That this is how Constitutional law is made, in the market place of legal ideas, interests, "empathies" as it were is how it has always been in democracies."

Very true (for once), but not by judicial activism. The bench is only to interpret the law, not make it. That's what we have the legislative branch for. A justice can opine all he likes regarding the justice or morality of a law, but as a citizen, not while on the job as a Supreme Court Justice. THAT is the reality and it is YOU who disregard it in favor of your own tastes.

Which is so typical of the lunatic left. A total disregard for reality in their agenda. One cannot stop the falling piano from landing on one's head. One can only face reality and move out of it's way. One has to deal with the reality of gravity pulling that instrument to the ground and act accordingly. A lefty will insist that despite all evidence to the contrary, that damned piano should float softly to the ground and disregard the plainly worded instructions for securing the ropes. Just like they ignore the laws of both man and God. And then they have the nerve to question the honor and intellect of those who adhere to those laws in all they do. Typical.

Marshall Art May 10, 2009 at 2:28 AM  

Oh, I almost forgot:

"I have found that in almost every case, he consistently sides on behalf of the powerful against the powerless; on behalf of a strong government or corporation against upholding Americans' individual rights."Your first mistake is quoting an idiot who thinks he's smarter than the people who crafted the Constitution. Your second is in thinking this proves anything. Barry, in his Feodor-like psuedo-intellectualism, shows he didn't like Alito's actions, but doesn't show if he was or wasn't in lien with the Constitution.

Now, I will admit, I don't recall off the top of my head if these specific comments were directed towards Alito's decisions as a lower court judge, or if they referred to his actions as a lawyer defending a corporation. I'm thinking it was the former, in which my previous comment covers, but if it was the latter, it's got nothing to do with this subject since he wasn't acting as a judge, but a lawyer arguing a case. Different ballgame then.

Anymore ducks in your barrel I can shoot for ya?

Al-Ozarka May 10, 2009 at 5:33 AM  

"Idiots contest all sorts of things." - FeoDORK

Yes! Just look at the modern liberal movement!

And just look at the leftist schmuck trolls here who contest every post!

Idiots, indeed!

Mark May 10, 2009 at 7:37 AM  

Re: "You are, indeed, a son of Bork.Feodork, you are so clueless you don't even realize that statement is a compliment.

Mark May 10, 2009 at 7:46 AM  

Re: "In other words, Obama finds Alito too solidly empathetic with no demonstrated ability to be even-handed."

So what? Obama has already proven he doesn't have a clue about why Justices should be appointed. That's the whole point of the rant:

Obama is threatening to appoint a Justice for the wrong reasons.

And you think his opinion should bolster your point?

You're a joke.

Jim May 10, 2009 at 6:09 PM  

Umm, has Obama actually nominated anybody yet, or do you just naturally have your panties in a bunch?

Of course I realize if he doesn't nominate son of Bork, you'll scream.

Marshall Art May 11, 2009 at 9:39 AM  

"Umm, has Obama actually nominated anybody yet, or do you just naturally have your panties in a bunch?"Not that I've heard. But if I wore panties, they'd be justifiably in a bunch, as should yours, over his remarks describing what kind of person he'd nominate and why. Justices aren't to have empathy for either side of a legal argument, but are to weigh the facts of the case and rule according to literal interpretation of the Constitution. Empathy is for sentencing or recommendations after the ruling is made.

Al-Ozarka May 11, 2009 at 3:31 PM  

Jimothy,

Your panties are still wedged in your crotch from the Roberts and Alito nominations.

Shut-up with the hypocrisy everyone but you can clearly see!

Post a Comment

Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.

We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.

Barry Obama : The Young Turk


Young Turk:
Date: 1908
Function: noun
Etymology: Young Turks, a 20th century revolutionary party in Turkey
:an insurgent or a member of an insurgent group especially in a political party : radical; broadly
:one advocating changes within a usually established group.





Photos: 1980 Taken by, Lisa Jack / M+B Gallery

Labels

"House Negro" "No One Messes with Joe" "O" "The One" 08-Election 1984 2009 Inaugural 2012 Election 9/11 abortion abortionists Air Obama Al Franken Al Gore Al-Qaeda American Youth Americarcare Assassination Scenario Atheism Barry O Bi-Partisanship Biden Billary Birth Certificate Border Security Bush Bush Legacy Change Change-NOT child-killers Christians Christmas Civilian Defense Force Clinton Code Pink Congress Conservatism Constitution Creation Darwin Del McCoury Democrat Hypocrisy Democrats Dick Morris Dr. Tiller Dubya Earth Day Elian Gonzalez Ends Justify Means Evil Evolution Evolution-Devolution Failure in Chief Fairness Doctrine Feodork Foreign Relations Free Speech Frogs Fuck America - Obama Has Gates George Orwell Gestapo Global Cooling Global Idiots Global Warmong God GOP Descent Graphic Design Great American Tea Party Gun-Control Guns hackers Harry Reid hate haters Heath Care Heretic Hillary Howard Dean Hussein ident in History identity theft Illegal Immigration Iraq Jackboots Jesus Jihadist-Lover Jimmy Carter Joe Biden Jon Stewart Kanye West Karl Rove Katrina Las Vegas Left-Wing Media Leftists Liar Liberal Media liberal tactics Liberals Liberty Lying Media Marriage Penalty Martyr Marxism McCain Media MSNBC/Obama Administration murderers Norm Coleman Obama Obama 2012 Obama Administration Obama Dicatorship Obama Lies Obama Wars Obama's Army Obamacare Obamists Olympia Snowe Partisanship perversion Piracy Police State Political Hell Political Left Populist Rage Pragmatist Prayer Proof of Citizenship Proposition 8 Racism Regime Change Revolution Ronald Reagan Rush Limbaugh Second Amendment Separation of Powers Slavery Socialist Government Tea-Bagging Tea-Parties terrorists The Raw Deal Thuggery Tom Tancredo Traitors War Criminal War on Weather War-Crimes Worst President in History

  © Blogger template Werd by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP