E-Mail 'Double dis on SCOTUS justices from Democrats in the same week' To A Friend

Email a copy of 'Double dis on SCOTUS justices from Democrats in the same week' to a friend

Loading ...

9 Responses to "Double dis on SCOTUS justices from Democrats in the same week"

Saqib Ali says:

March 27, 2009 at 11:44 pm

In an recent interview with Hoover Institution, elaborating on his earlier statement that “devotees of The Living Constitution do not seek to facilitate social change but to prevent it”[1], Justice Scalia said:

“To make things change you don’t need a constitution. The function of a Constitution is to rigidify, to ossify, NOT to facilitate change. You want change? All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. Things will change as fast as you like. My constitution, very flexible, when you want a right to abortion, persuade your fellow citizens that it’s a good idea. And pass a law. And then you find out, the results are worse than we ever thought, you can repeal the law. That’s flexibility. The reason people want the Supreme Court to declare that abortion is a constitutional right is precisely to rigidify that right, it means it sweeps across all fifty states and it is a law now and forever or until the Supreme Court changes its mind. That’s not flexibility.”

1. Scalia, A., & Gutmann, A. (1998). A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law. Princeton University Press.
Anthony (Los Angeles) says:

March 28, 2009 at 12:04 am

The rule of thumb – or so I thought – is that justices and judges were supposed to be confirmed or denied not based on their personal philosphical beliefs but instead on their Constitutional knowledge and whether or not they could make their rulings based on a strict reading and understanding of Constitutional law.

That’s actually not the case. The traditional standard has been much looser: unless a nominee is obviously incompetent or corrupt, the practice has been to approve nominees. If what you describe was true, ST, then progressive justices such as Brandeis, Frankfurter, or Ginsburg would never have been confirmed; their jurisprudence involves a lot that goes beyond a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

In fact, the process of judicial confirmation has been so pro forma through most of our history that nominees to the SCOTUS didn’t even start appearing before the Judiciary Committee before the 1920s.

Anyway, Republicans held to this principle of giving the president his choice for longer than the Democrats: most Republicans voted for Ginsburg, but the Democrats treated Judge Bork shamefully.

As for Reid, it’s all too easy to say a politician one doesn’t like is “stupid,” but, in his case, I think it may be apt. He says far too many stupid things for me not to question his basic intelligence.
Carlos says:

March 28, 2009 at 12:12 am

Gahahahlly, Sarge, if ya feel that strongly about it, why don’tcha try to remove him? Maybe ’cause ya know that 1) you’d lose and 2) it’d show the entire world what an idiot ya are and how poorly ya understand the Constitution and 3) it’d let the world know ya don’t give two hoots and a holler ’bout what the judiciary is supposed to do, ya just want them ta rule the Constitution unconstitutional?

We all know Frank’s a pig, but I wouldn’t disparage pigs by calling Reid one. Pigs are too intelligent for that.
MuscleDaddy says:

March 28, 2009 at 12:53 am

The point in both cases is actually to try to tear down the very perspective of “Justices operate within rules that work” – which is turn just another large step further down the path of destroying the concept of “There are rules that work.”

If the Left can just complete this attack/operation, that began decades ago, then ‘We The People’ will be left without an acceptably objective structure of ‘Right & Wrong’ from which to base a resistance to whatever depredations against our country, freedoms & persons they find personally enriching or expedient in their continuing quest to be in-charge-of-absolutely-everything.

– MuscleDaddy
daveinboca says:

March 28, 2009 at 6:15 am

And what about the case of David Souter or the fellow appointed by Gerald Ford, both of whom veered sharply leftward after testifying as centrists in the hearings by the Judicial Cte.

I guess for the double-standard moron which Dingy Harry [“The War is Lost”] represents, that doesn’t count. It is simply amazing what this pathetic quiver-voiced victim of senile dementia gets away with in the MSM, without any notice by the so-called guardians of democracy in the Fourth Estate.

Reid represents the corrupt sleaze of DC more even than his counterpart in the House of Rep, as his sons toil away working as lobbyists in the basement of his home on Capitol Hill [at least he isn’t running a prostitution for perverts operation as Elmer Barney Fudd Frank was doing while his “husband” was running Fan/Fred and pushing the economy into a Community Reinvestment Act Mortgage catastrophe.

Reid is simply a total fool [“There’s no fool like an old fool, Ben Franklin said”] devoted to collecting pictures of Ben on $100 bills.

What a silly old man.
DavidL says:

March 28, 2009 at 6:59 am

Dirty Harry Reid is an embrassment, to all the democrats in the Senate. Reid is the best leader the Senate democrats can find. Pathetic.
Nina says:

March 28, 2009 at 7:39 am

I hope Alito,Scalia and Roberts live to be 110 !!
Carlos says:

March 29, 2009 at 2:52 pm

I just hope we all survive the next 4 years!
vegas art guy says:

March 29, 2009 at 10:52 pm

I pray that the NV GOP will field a strong candidate to challenge Reid. Every time he opens his yap he embarrasses me.

Comments are closed.