Yesterday's unsurprising announcement that the Supreme Court will review ObamaCare next June brought out a tidal wave of punditry.
I heard everything from predictions that the law, or at least the mandatory health insurance purchase component, will be rejected on a 5-4 vote, to Uwe Reinhardt, Princeton's health care so-called expert, claiming that it won't even matter what happens to the mandate. Reinhardt's comments were especially odd, since so much effort was expended by Democrats to use the mandate to fulfill Congressional attempts, amid a lot of outright falsehoods, to have the CBO score the bill, which will add 30 million people to the insured roles, as actually reducing US health care expenses.
On a general note, it feels as if one is living through a court decision like Dred Scott, Brown, Roe, or Marbury. One thing on which everyone can agree is that this is likely the acid, final test for our nation of the unfortunately vaguely-worded commerce clause.
It was disappointing to read Appellate Judge Silber's naive statement that the courts have to presume that Congress passes only Constitutional laws.
Is that not a basis for term limits on the federal bench, all by itself?
On Bret Baier's Fox News program, conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer described the four parts on which the Supreme Court will rule on the law:
- the Constitutionality of the mandate under the Commerce clause
- severability of the mandate from the remainder of the law
- standing of those bringing suit a priori to paying the tax for failing to purchase coverage
- Medicare funding related to the bill
Thus, several combinations of outcomes could occur from rulings on the various elements under consideration.
Justice Kagan is not recusing herself, although it is clear she was involved in support of the law as Solicitor General for the administration. However, one has to pragmatically ask if it would really do any good to have a 4-4 tie on these components. Or if the arm-wrestling over who would be a replacement ninth Justice would do the nation any good, either.
I'm a big proponent of things happening for a reason, and people receiving the justice they deserve. On that basis, if Kagan's participation results in the key rulings of the Commerce clause/mandate being upheld, and the it being severable anyway, so be it. Americans will reap what they sowed by electing the president and Congress that passed this monstrosity.
But, back to summer of 2012.
Some hold that if the mandate fails, and it isn't severable, so the law is unconstitutional, then Wonderboy can run away from the whole issue and claim no harm was done.
That's ridiculous on its face. As Krauthammer noted on Baier's program last night, Obama did nothing else of import for the past three years but pass ObamaCare and waste nearly a trillion dollars on useless 'stimulus' spending. Nobody's going to forget he spent so much time and capital on this law.
Will he, if so defeated by the court, then turn to run against the GOP House and the Supreme Court? Perhaps, but I don't think that will cut any ice with the independents who elected him.
The more interesting question is how a Supreme Court affirmation of the first two points will affect the November election. I suspect it will galvanize support for the COP presidential candidate and its Senate candidates, in hopes of overturning the whole mess.
The second-order issue then becomes how this plays out if Romney, the original architect of the ObamaCare approach in Massachusetts, is nominated by the GOP? Won't he appear hypocritical for railing against the Court and a plan he basically signed into law as a state governor?
However those mechanics play out, I think it's more instructive to see this as perhaps the final test of the Commerce clause as capable of completely gutting the Constitution which our Founders intended. If the Supreme Court greenlights this last firewall against Congress essentially being given the right to pass any law as Constitutional because the Commerce clause is omnipotent, we will wake up the next day to a different America. And the only way the prior one will be restored will be via a Constitutional amendment specifically altering the Commerce clause to remove its elasticity and overturn decades of bad law underpinning its misuse.
It could well be that we have to endure more liberal attacks on the Constitution, and perhaps another four or more years, in order to build sufficient support for a broadscale, Constitutionally-based roll back of what has been a 110 year battle to undermine the deliberately-minimal federal powers originally provided in the Constitution.
However, at this particular point in our nation's history, our economic position won't sustain the ramifications of a liberal Democratic victory on ObamaCare by the Supreme Court.
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Pat Leahy's Unconstitutional Supreme Court Plans
Leahy wants to certify ex-Supreme Court judges to replace those who recuse themselves, to avoid potential 4-4 splits.
This is a classic example of an unconstitutional 'solution' for a non-existent problem. The nation has functioned since 1789 without the benefit of this enlightened fix.
Why is Leahy so concerned now?
A Wall Street Journal article in yesterday's edition noted that just-seated justice Kagan will likely recuse herself, as former Solicitor General, from dozens of cases. In order to get a liberal tilt to any decision, Leahy wants to use retired justices, all of whom are either liberal, or more liberal than conservative (Sandra Day O'Connor).
It's a very transparent and cynical ploy on Leahy's part. And likely totally unconstitutional, as well.
But when has that ever stopped either party's Congressional Members in the last hundred years?
This is a classic example of an unconstitutional 'solution' for a non-existent problem. The nation has functioned since 1789 without the benefit of this enlightened fix.
Why is Leahy so concerned now?
A Wall Street Journal article in yesterday's edition noted that just-seated justice Kagan will likely recuse herself, as former Solicitor General, from dozens of cases. In order to get a liberal tilt to any decision, Leahy wants to use retired justices, all of whom are either liberal, or more liberal than conservative (Sandra Day O'Connor).
It's a very transparent and cynical ploy on Leahy's part. And likely totally unconstitutional, as well.
But when has that ever stopped either party's Congressional Members in the last hundred years?
Monday, June 21, 2010
David Souter's Faulty Logic
Two attorneys and law professors, John McGinnis and Michael Rappaport, wrote a nice little piece in last Monday's Wall Street Journal revealing Supreme Court Justice's David Souter's shocking inability to employ logic correctly.
The authors noted Souter's recent Harvard commencement address, wherein the quirky Justice decried original intent as a "simplistic" reading of the Constitution. He then went on to hail Brown v. Board of Education as an example of using current social values to overrule the Constitution.
However, as McGinnis and Rappaport explain, this isn't true. The Plessy decision which Brown reversed was, itself, a product of then-current racial realities, as interpreted by that era's Supreme Court. Plessy, thus, was an example of what Souter claims to favor, but, oddly, a case which he then supports having been overturned.
You can see the problem. Souter comes down on both sides of the issue. He was against Plessy, a decision which exemplified his view that the Constitution should be molded to fit current societal values. Then he also supports the case that overturned that prior case.
More evidence that some Justices need to just be ignored, because they can't manage to reason their way to a simple, consistent, logical conclusion.
Time for those Supreme Court and other federal bench term limits.
The authors noted Souter's recent Harvard commencement address, wherein the quirky Justice decried original intent as a "simplistic" reading of the Constitution. He then went on to hail Brown v. Board of Education as an example of using current social values to overrule the Constitution.
However, as McGinnis and Rappaport explain, this isn't true. The Plessy decision which Brown reversed was, itself, a product of then-current racial realities, as interpreted by that era's Supreme Court. Plessy, thus, was an example of what Souter claims to favor, but, oddly, a case which he then supports having been overturned.
You can see the problem. Souter comes down on both sides of the issue. He was against Plessy, a decision which exemplified his view that the Constitution should be molded to fit current societal values. Then he also supports the case that overturned that prior case.
More evidence that some Justices need to just be ignored, because they can't manage to reason their way to a simple, consistent, logical conclusion.
Time for those Supreme Court and other federal bench term limits.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Borking Kagan?
I vividly recall watching the Bork confirmation hearings in 1995. I was packing for a ski trip while watching, incredulously, as Teddy Kennedy, an unindicted murderer, hounded Robert Bork for imagined sins that bore no resemblance to reality.
Specifically, what is stuck in my mind is Kennedy lambasting Bork for being insensitive in his ruling on a case involving a truck driver, while Bork attempted to teach Kennedy about appellate cases, i.e., the judges on the appellate court were only allowed to rule on those issues on appeal, not the full merits of the entire original case.
Maybe Teddy was busy driving drunk the day that they taught this point in law school.
Now we have Elena Kagan engaging in surreal self-referential cloaking of her legal views.
First, she authored a book in which she opined on the Bork nomination. In a well-written editorial in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, Gordon Crovitz noted that Kagan got the true impact and nature of the Bork hearings all wrong,
"Ms. Kagan disagreed. She wrote that the most notable quality of the Bork hearings "was not the depths to which it occasionally descended, but the heights that it repeatedly reached." She claimed that "senators addressed this complex subject with a degree of seriousness and care not usually present in legislative deliberation."
Really? The most famous comment by a senator was by Ted Kennedy, speaking on the floor just after President Reagan announced the nomination: "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens."
The standard for dishonest claims against Judge Bork thus established, the hearings became a farce. The daily drill, funded by dozens of liberal lobbying groups, was to take the facts of a case, twist them into a sound bite, then ignore the underlying legal issue. "
Never the less, Kagan must have already begun hedging her bets, because nowhere is there a substantial record of her views on anything of import in the legal field. Somewhere recently, another writer observed that she and Wonderboy both share a rather troubling distinction. As attorneys who taught at major universities, neither published anything of note.
We've finally arrived at a point where lawyers contemplating government jobs, whether elected or appointed, are careful to confine their true beliefs on constitutional matters to themselves and perhaps a few trusted friends. Or private meetings where no obvious cameras are in evidence.
Thus, Kagan is now famously silent on key issues which may come before the court. As Crovitz wrote at the end of his column,
"The lesson that prospective judicial nominees learned was that to avoid public positions that would enable anyone to bork them. The Oxford English Dictionary has defined the verb bork as "to defame or vilify (a person) systematically, esp. in the mass media, usually with the aim of preventing his or her appointment to public office; to obstruct or thwart (a person) in this way."
The long-term impact of the Bork hearings is that nominees for the highest court are now selected on the basis of how little can be known about their views. This makes Ms. Kagan's erstwhile supporters nervous. As a New York Times editorial said, "Whether by ambitious design or by habit of mind, Ms. Kagan has spent decades carefully husbanding her thoughts and shielding her philosophy from view."
Indeed, Ms. Kagan may not have the courage of her previous convictions on nomination hearings. When she was being confirmed to be solicitor general last year, she was asked about this law-review article.
Ms. Kagan responded that she was "less convinced than I was in 1995 that substantive discussions of legal issues and views, in the context of nomination hearings, provide the great public benefits I suggested." It seems her bork is worse than her bite."
So scared is Kagan of divulging her true beliefs that she even countered her own written work, and, hilariously went on record as now believing that less is more when it comes to learning about a Supreme Court nominee's views.
How's that? We are better served by knowing less about the views of a young lawyer about to be named to a life appointment on the nation's highest court?
Honestly, on that sentiment alone, Kagan should be summarily dismissed from consideration as a shallow idiot, or a complete charlatan seeking to hoodwink the entire nation into nominating her on no relevant basis whatsoever.
Specifically, what is stuck in my mind is Kennedy lambasting Bork for being insensitive in his ruling on a case involving a truck driver, while Bork attempted to teach Kennedy about appellate cases, i.e., the judges on the appellate court were only allowed to rule on those issues on appeal, not the full merits of the entire original case.
Maybe Teddy was busy driving drunk the day that they taught this point in law school.
Now we have Elena Kagan engaging in surreal self-referential cloaking of her legal views.
First, she authored a book in which she opined on the Bork nomination. In a well-written editorial in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, Gordon Crovitz noted that Kagan got the true impact and nature of the Bork hearings all wrong,
"Ms. Kagan disagreed. She wrote that the most notable quality of the Bork hearings "was not the depths to which it occasionally descended, but the heights that it repeatedly reached." She claimed that "senators addressed this complex subject with a degree of seriousness and care not usually present in legislative deliberation."
Really? The most famous comment by a senator was by Ted Kennedy, speaking on the floor just after President Reagan announced the nomination: "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens."
The standard for dishonest claims against Judge Bork thus established, the hearings became a farce. The daily drill, funded by dozens of liberal lobbying groups, was to take the facts of a case, twist them into a sound bite, then ignore the underlying legal issue. "
Never the less, Kagan must have already begun hedging her bets, because nowhere is there a substantial record of her views on anything of import in the legal field. Somewhere recently, another writer observed that she and Wonderboy both share a rather troubling distinction. As attorneys who taught at major universities, neither published anything of note.
We've finally arrived at a point where lawyers contemplating government jobs, whether elected or appointed, are careful to confine their true beliefs on constitutional matters to themselves and perhaps a few trusted friends. Or private meetings where no obvious cameras are in evidence.
Thus, Kagan is now famously silent on key issues which may come before the court. As Crovitz wrote at the end of his column,
"The lesson that prospective judicial nominees learned was that to avoid public positions that would enable anyone to bork them. The Oxford English Dictionary has defined the verb bork as "to defame or vilify (a person) systematically, esp. in the mass media, usually with the aim of preventing his or her appointment to public office; to obstruct or thwart (a person) in this way."
The long-term impact of the Bork hearings is that nominees for the highest court are now selected on the basis of how little can be known about their views. This makes Ms. Kagan's erstwhile supporters nervous. As a New York Times editorial said, "Whether by ambitious design or by habit of mind, Ms. Kagan has spent decades carefully husbanding her thoughts and shielding her philosophy from view."
Indeed, Ms. Kagan may not have the courage of her previous convictions on nomination hearings. When she was being confirmed to be solicitor general last year, she was asked about this law-review article.
Ms. Kagan responded that she was "less convinced than I was in 1995 that substantive discussions of legal issues and views, in the context of nomination hearings, provide the great public benefits I suggested." It seems her bork is worse than her bite."
So scared is Kagan of divulging her true beliefs that she even countered her own written work, and, hilariously went on record as now believing that less is more when it comes to learning about a Supreme Court nominee's views.
How's that? We are better served by knowing less about the views of a young lawyer about to be named to a life appointment on the nation's highest court?
Honestly, on that sentiment alone, Kagan should be summarily dismissed from consideration as a shallow idiot, or a complete charlatan seeking to hoodwink the entire nation into nominating her on no relevant basis whatsoever.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Justice Stevens' Resignation
The recent announcement of Justice Stevens' imminent resignation from the Supreme Court has set off a lot of turmoil.
Of course, in more placid political times, one would expect the sitting president to probably get his nominee appointed without too much fuss.
But these aren't normally placid times. Instead, we have a naive, inexperienced, socialist president who rammed an unpopular and unwanted health care bill through Congress by the barest of majorities, using bribes and legislative tricks.
While confirmation of Stevens' replacement will only require 51 Senators to vote for him/her, the Republicans have warned of a filibuster if the nominee is unacceptable to them.
I suppose the good news is that, being a liberal, Stevens' replacement can only be, well, at worst, a liberal, as well. Even the most anti-American, socialist liberal that Wonderboy could find, made in his own image and likeness, can't really affect the existing balance.
Despite the pleas of some Republican Senators, like perennially-naive looking Orrin Hatch of Utah, I'm quite sure Wonderboy won't nominate anyone even remotely moderate in political outlook.
The real surprise to me, however, is the appearance of Hilary Clinton's name as a nominee.
Is this a joke?
What possible qualifications could she have for the Supreme Court? Being the wife of a former, impeached president? Being a run-of-the-mill, small-time lawyer from Arkansas? Having dabbled in questionable cases during her active legal career, such as the infamous real estate dealings in the Whitewater scandal?
Don't we typically prefer Supreme Court nominees to have been on the bench somewhere before? Shown some judicial temperament and ability to rule with minimal reversals?
If anyone lacks judicial temperament, it would be Hilary.
Honestly, I hope it was and is a joke. Because it would be the ultimate evidence of our country becoming a plutocracy if we see a president nominating a former president's wife, from his own party, for the Supreme Court.
I had hoped we had not yet sunk to the level of Argentina, but, maybe I'm wrong.
Of course, in more placid political times, one would expect the sitting president to probably get his nominee appointed without too much fuss.
But these aren't normally placid times. Instead, we have a naive, inexperienced, socialist president who rammed an unpopular and unwanted health care bill through Congress by the barest of majorities, using bribes and legislative tricks.
While confirmation of Stevens' replacement will only require 51 Senators to vote for him/her, the Republicans have warned of a filibuster if the nominee is unacceptable to them.
I suppose the good news is that, being a liberal, Stevens' replacement can only be, well, at worst, a liberal, as well. Even the most anti-American, socialist liberal that Wonderboy could find, made in his own image and likeness, can't really affect the existing balance.
Despite the pleas of some Republican Senators, like perennially-naive looking Orrin Hatch of Utah, I'm quite sure Wonderboy won't nominate anyone even remotely moderate in political outlook.
The real surprise to me, however, is the appearance of Hilary Clinton's name as a nominee.
Is this a joke?
What possible qualifications could she have for the Supreme Court? Being the wife of a former, impeached president? Being a run-of-the-mill, small-time lawyer from Arkansas? Having dabbled in questionable cases during her active legal career, such as the infamous real estate dealings in the Whitewater scandal?
Don't we typically prefer Supreme Court nominees to have been on the bench somewhere before? Shown some judicial temperament and ability to rule with minimal reversals?
If anyone lacks judicial temperament, it would be Hilary.
Honestly, I hope it was and is a joke. Because it would be the ultimate evidence of our country becoming a plutocracy if we see a president nominating a former president's wife, from his own party, for the Supreme Court.
I had hoped we had not yet sunk to the level of Argentina, but, maybe I'm wrong.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Wonderboy's Ignorance Of The Supreme Court's Recent Campaign Finance Ruling
By now, much has been written about the eight members of the Supreme Court being ambushed by Wonderboy's grossly misleading and inaccurate characterization of the recent ruling nullifying some unconstitutional elements of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
Some feel the court members should have had some warning about the diatribe. Others feel it's appropriate for the president, representing the executive branch, to call to attention its disagreement with the judicial branch over a particular issue.
But what's not in dispute is that Wonderboy described the decision, and its effects, completely erroneously.
For instance, he said it removed a century-old ban on corporate contributions to political campaigns.
That's not true. It simply allowed institutions, such as labor unions, corporations and non-profits, to spend their own money at any time to express their political opinions. McCain-Feingold improperly sought to muzzle free speech by restricting the time before an election during which political speech by such entities could be expressed.
Additionally, while the ruling made no mention of foreign entities, our First Lawyer claimed that it did.
If the sitting First Rookie, who is a Harvard-trained lawyer, can't get these legal points straight, just what is he supposed to be qualified to do?
It's ludicrous to see a State of the Union address contain such factual errors, and in the context of being used to browbeat the highest court in the land.
Especially when the court, for once, has rolled back government control of speech, and restored the rights of freedom of expression.
Some feel the court members should have had some warning about the diatribe. Others feel it's appropriate for the president, representing the executive branch, to call to attention its disagreement with the judicial branch over a particular issue.
But what's not in dispute is that Wonderboy described the decision, and its effects, completely erroneously.
For instance, he said it removed a century-old ban on corporate contributions to political campaigns.
That's not true. It simply allowed institutions, such as labor unions, corporations and non-profits, to spend their own money at any time to express their political opinions. McCain-Feingold improperly sought to muzzle free speech by restricting the time before an election during which political speech by such entities could be expressed.
Additionally, while the ruling made no mention of foreign entities, our First Lawyer claimed that it did.
If the sitting First Rookie, who is a Harvard-trained lawyer, can't get these legal points straight, just what is he supposed to be qualified to do?
It's ludicrous to see a State of the Union address contain such factual errors, and in the context of being used to browbeat the highest court in the land.
Especially when the court, for once, has rolled back government control of speech, and restored the rights of freedom of expression.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Court Takes Back First Amendment Rights Congress Took Away
Whenever New York Senator Chuck Schumer complains about and is against something, you can be pretty sure that something is good for you.
In this case, that "something" was the completely unconstitutional element of the more than a decade-old McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
The bill baselessly banned corporations (and unions) from publishing anything mentioning a candidate in a federal election within a fairly short period of time prior to said election.
Schumer and his cronies, taking the free speech-robbing law as their baseline, are screaming that the Supreme Court has erred on the side of allowing large organizations- both corporate and labor- to swamp individuals by their prospectively large influences in campaigns.
However, Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer had it right when he explained that the court has quite simply gutted yet another attempt by Congress to suppress free speech.
Krauthammer went on to note that laws such as McCain-Feingold, while appearing to allow more weight for the individual, in fact give loosely-defined and overseen powers to federal government officials to police campaign speech. Political speech, he observed, is precisely the sort that incumbents like to muzzle. So the Supreme Court's ruling is a victory for American voters, because it removes a rather longstanding and unconstitutional attempt by Congress to control political speech in elections.
Why shouldn't corporations be allowed the same rights to political speech as persons? Corporations have interests, owners who are harmed by government, and have legitimate views which are entwined with their private property rights. Many billions of dollars of America's private property are owned via the corporate form.
Why, then, should that form, and those assets' owners be forbidden to speak out on their own behalf?
They clearly should not. Nor should unions.
In fact, if anything, the recent court decision striking down the offensive part of McCain-Feingold somewhat levels the playing field. It's well known that unions often use their funds and members in ways focused on getting out the vote and influencing elections in ways that corporations cannot match. Now, corporations are allowed to return to the political fray and provide an offset to the time, energy and money which unions like SEI, AFSCME and other liberal, Democrat-leaning labor organizations have been dumping into their chosen candidates' campaigns for years.
Rather than be misled by Schumer's lies and complaints, cheer instead for the return of an important freedom to the American political scene, and free political speech to the First Amendment.
In this case, that "something" was the completely unconstitutional element of the more than a decade-old McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
The bill baselessly banned corporations (and unions) from publishing anything mentioning a candidate in a federal election within a fairly short period of time prior to said election.
Schumer and his cronies, taking the free speech-robbing law as their baseline, are screaming that the Supreme Court has erred on the side of allowing large organizations- both corporate and labor- to swamp individuals by their prospectively large influences in campaigns.
However, Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer had it right when he explained that the court has quite simply gutted yet another attempt by Congress to suppress free speech.
Krauthammer went on to note that laws such as McCain-Feingold, while appearing to allow more weight for the individual, in fact give loosely-defined and overseen powers to federal government officials to police campaign speech. Political speech, he observed, is precisely the sort that incumbents like to muzzle. So the Supreme Court's ruling is a victory for American voters, because it removes a rather longstanding and unconstitutional attempt by Congress to control political speech in elections.
Why shouldn't corporations be allowed the same rights to political speech as persons? Corporations have interests, owners who are harmed by government, and have legitimate views which are entwined with their private property rights. Many billions of dollars of America's private property are owned via the corporate form.
Why, then, should that form, and those assets' owners be forbidden to speak out on their own behalf?
They clearly should not. Nor should unions.
In fact, if anything, the recent court decision striking down the offensive part of McCain-Feingold somewhat levels the playing field. It's well known that unions often use their funds and members in ways focused on getting out the vote and influencing elections in ways that corporations cannot match. Now, corporations are allowed to return to the political fray and provide an offset to the time, energy and money which unions like SEI, AFSCME and other liberal, Democrat-leaning labor organizations have been dumping into their chosen candidates' campaigns for years.
Rather than be misled by Schumer's lies and complaints, cheer instead for the return of an important freedom to the American political scene, and free political speech to the First Amendment.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
More Wrong-headed Blather From Peggy Noonan
Peggy Noonan's stream-of-consciousness editorials in the Wall Street Journal's weekend editions are growing increasingly more bizarre.
This past weekend, Noonan couldn't fill an entire column with any one topic- the lunar landing anniversary, Supreme Court nominee hearings, or even comedian Al Franken's stolen election.
But what really caught my attention was her focusing on Hillary Clinton's lameduck status as Secretary of State.
Sure, Noonan is correct. But others, including me, warned of Wonderboy's tactic of isolating and neutering Clinton by his 'offer' of the cabinet position. Noonan points out how many little czars have been created to pre-empt and limit Clinton's scope in key geographic areas, such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Mideast.
I'll agree that Hillary looked totally stupid in a picture on the Journal's Monday morning front page, wearing a bright, floral lei while the accompanying headline declared that she was being dissed by India's Environmental Minister on climate-control issues.
But Noonan seems way off base, at least to me, when she finished her column with this contention,
"They will look like kids playing with history. Hillary isn't a kid. She's experienced and has been roughed up by history. Watch. She'll roll right back."
No, she won't. She's nowhere near as relevantly 'experienced' as Noonan believes. And by joining Wonderboy's cabinet, she removed herself from an ability to observe and opine on current Democratic administration domestic activities. She will now be lacking in credibility on these issues, and moreso, if/when she departs the cabinet prematurely.
If you don't like Sarah Palin's early resignation, what will you consider Hillary's? Different?
Further, Hillary lost because, among other things, she was outrun in the campaign. She gave it her best shot, and lost. She lost a huge early lead, chose the wrong moments to turn on the faux tears, and became emotional in a very bad way, too late.
Ironically, for all the hue and cry that Republicans don't have adequate leaders to field a slate for the next presidential season, I think it's the Democrats who are in trouble.
Wonderboy will either be a crippled, one-term failure, or have his heels nipped at by various second-rate contenders. But I think it's unlikely Hillary will be one of them.
She lost once. She joined the hated opposition's team. And she took a portfolio that effectively removed her from having any sort of domestic issues voice. I doubt she could rev up a funding and grassroots machine now.
I don't happen to have made a thorough study of the phenomenon, but I think second acts like Hillary's would have to be in presidential campaigns are rare. Especially with her relative lack of governmental experience, having only been a Senator, and from a broadly recognized carpetbagging state.
To my knowledge, even Nixon and Reagan had to skip an election, and were more experienced. No Democrat has lost, then won, in half a century.
I think Noonan is simply off her rocker on this one.
This past weekend, Noonan couldn't fill an entire column with any one topic- the lunar landing anniversary, Supreme Court nominee hearings, or even comedian Al Franken's stolen election.
But what really caught my attention was her focusing on Hillary Clinton's lameduck status as Secretary of State.
Sure, Noonan is correct. But others, including me, warned of Wonderboy's tactic of isolating and neutering Clinton by his 'offer' of the cabinet position. Noonan points out how many little czars have been created to pre-empt and limit Clinton's scope in key geographic areas, such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Mideast.
I'll agree that Hillary looked totally stupid in a picture on the Journal's Monday morning front page, wearing a bright, floral lei while the accompanying headline declared that she was being dissed by India's Environmental Minister on climate-control issues.
But Noonan seems way off base, at least to me, when she finished her column with this contention,
"They will look like kids playing with history. Hillary isn't a kid. She's experienced and has been roughed up by history. Watch. She'll roll right back."
No, she won't. She's nowhere near as relevantly 'experienced' as Noonan believes. And by joining Wonderboy's cabinet, she removed herself from an ability to observe and opine on current Democratic administration domestic activities. She will now be lacking in credibility on these issues, and moreso, if/when she departs the cabinet prematurely.
If you don't like Sarah Palin's early resignation, what will you consider Hillary's? Different?
Further, Hillary lost because, among other things, she was outrun in the campaign. She gave it her best shot, and lost. She lost a huge early lead, chose the wrong moments to turn on the faux tears, and became emotional in a very bad way, too late.
Ironically, for all the hue and cry that Republicans don't have adequate leaders to field a slate for the next presidential season, I think it's the Democrats who are in trouble.
Wonderboy will either be a crippled, one-term failure, or have his heels nipped at by various second-rate contenders. But I think it's unlikely Hillary will be one of them.
She lost once. She joined the hated opposition's team. And she took a portfolio that effectively removed her from having any sort of domestic issues voice. I doubt she could rev up a funding and grassroots machine now.
I don't happen to have made a thorough study of the phenomenon, but I think second acts like Hillary's would have to be in presidential campaigns are rare. Especially with her relative lack of governmental experience, having only been a Senator, and from a broadly recognized carpetbagging state.
To my knowledge, even Nixon and Reagan had to skip an election, and were more experienced. No Democrat has lost, then won, in half a century.
I think Noonan is simply off her rocker on this one.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Ricci vs. New Haven: Where's Red Sonia's Empathy?
There does indeed, as some pundits have noted, seem to be a double standard at work in the confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor.
For example, as one editorialist in the Wall Street Journal observed, Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer decried a Bush appellate nominee for being Catholic. But he finds no problem with Sotomayor's sharing, however notionally, that church affiliation.
But perhaps the more curious question is, in the Ricci case, where was Sotomayor's famous "wise Latina" empathy?
The lead plaintiff, in an interview on Fox News last week, explained that he expected a full review of the case from the Second Circuit's Appellate Court. Instead, Sotomayor's response was terse and lacking in any discussion of the case.
Yet, here we have a group of wronge firemen, some with meager means, scrounging money to fund their own tutoring for an exam, the passing of which would provide them with career advancement and better compensation.
What was really horrifying was, in the same broadcast, hearing the discussion of Supreme Court Justice Alito's explicit identification of the case's origin. That is, a New Haven black minister visited the city's mayor and threatened him with electoral defeat if he didn't overturn the exam results.
Alito called Sotomayor's and her colleagues' review of the case in error and completely missing the obvious racial aspect.
Hmmmm.....wronged blue collar union workers. A racist minister pressures a mayor to overturn fair exam results. Sounds tailor made for a heavy dollop of judicial empathy, doesn't it?
Unless, of course, the jurist is Sonia Sotomayor, and the plaintiffs are neither Hispanic, nor black.
For example, as one editorialist in the Wall Street Journal observed, Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer decried a Bush appellate nominee for being Catholic. But he finds no problem with Sotomayor's sharing, however notionally, that church affiliation.
But perhaps the more curious question is, in the Ricci case, where was Sotomayor's famous "wise Latina" empathy?
The lead plaintiff, in an interview on Fox News last week, explained that he expected a full review of the case from the Second Circuit's Appellate Court. Instead, Sotomayor's response was terse and lacking in any discussion of the case.
Yet, here we have a group of wronge firemen, some with meager means, scrounging money to fund their own tutoring for an exam, the passing of which would provide them with career advancement and better compensation.
What was really horrifying was, in the same broadcast, hearing the discussion of Supreme Court Justice Alito's explicit identification of the case's origin. That is, a New Haven black minister visited the city's mayor and threatened him with electoral defeat if he didn't overturn the exam results.
Alito called Sotomayor's and her colleagues' review of the case in error and completely missing the obvious racial aspect.
Hmmmm.....wronged blue collar union workers. A racist minister pressures a mayor to overturn fair exam results. Sounds tailor made for a heavy dollop of judicial empathy, doesn't it?
Unless, of course, the jurist is Sonia Sotomayor, and the plaintiffs are neither Hispanic, nor black.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Sotomayor's Hearings
I confess to being confused.
Didn't Wonderboy tell us a few months ago that he would require quite some time to assemble a list of nominees for the Supreme Court? And didn't he agree that such a nomination would require a thoughtful, careful confirmation process by the Senate?
So why are we getting the bum's rush with Sotomayor?
It seems Wonderboy dug up an appropriately-minority nominee in no time flat, then pressured his party's Senate leaders to push the confirmation through between the July 4th recess and Congress' later, summer recess.
With longer-lived justices meaning fewer Supreme Court openings, we ought to see longer confirmation hearings and evaluation periods, not shorter ones.
Plus, this nominee has uttered such egregiously inappropriate statements- on the record- regarding her supposed superiority due to her gender and race, and that judges make law, that she is tainted from the start.
Can't we at least have a liberal nominee who is less sarcastic and dismissive about the legislative process reflecting the will of the people, rather than judges re-ordering society from their benches?
Everything about this nominee and nominating process screams out for starting over with a different candidate.
Didn't Wonderboy tell us a few months ago that he would require quite some time to assemble a list of nominees for the Supreme Court? And didn't he agree that such a nomination would require a thoughtful, careful confirmation process by the Senate?
So why are we getting the bum's rush with Sotomayor?
It seems Wonderboy dug up an appropriately-minority nominee in no time flat, then pressured his party's Senate leaders to push the confirmation through between the July 4th recess and Congress' later, summer recess.
With longer-lived justices meaning fewer Supreme Court openings, we ought to see longer confirmation hearings and evaluation periods, not shorter ones.
Plus, this nominee has uttered such egregiously inappropriate statements- on the record- regarding her supposed superiority due to her gender and race, and that judges make law, that she is tainted from the start.
Can't we at least have a liberal nominee who is less sarcastic and dismissive about the legislative process reflecting the will of the people, rather than judges re-ordering society from their benches?
Everything about this nominee and nominating process screams out for starting over with a different candidate.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Ending Lifetime Federal Court Apppointments
Last week, in this post, I highlighted 10 major flaws I believe have developed today in the US Constitution.
The second flaw I mentioned is the Constitution's lifetime appointment for federal judges, especially to the Supreme Court.
A little historical perspective and arithmetic illuminates this subject. Back in the 1780s, average male life expectancy was somewhere around 35. You can probably add 10-15 years when controlling for education, wealth and profession. That is, the better-educated, wealthier, less agrarian men probably lived longer due to better hygiene, knowledge of healthier habits, easier work environments, etc.
Plus, the average had to be depressed from the effect of so many uneducated farmers and frontiersmen who met with early or untimely deaths in a very rugged and dangerous environment.
Figure a lawyer or respected community figure would probably not be appointed to a federal court until in his 30s. Perhaps his 40s for the Supreme Court.
As an example, consider the nation's fourth Chief Justice, John Marshall. After a legislative and cabinet career, he ascended to the Supreme Court at the age of 46, serving until his death in 1835, at the age of 80.
Our Founding Father's probably didn't think a lot about lifetime careers in federal office. After all, they had lives to live, businesses to attend to, fortunes to make. Nobody probably gave serious consideration to the idea that anybody would want to serve in government for life.
They probably didn't think a lot about life spans, technology, diet, education, etc. I doubt they considered that better-educated, wealthier men who would be on federal benches would have corresponding longer lifespans. To the Framers, living 20 years longer than average probably gave them the notion that a Supreme Court appointment was good for about two decades, more or less.
Now, we know differently. A 50 year-old person ascending to the Supreme Court is quite likely to have a good 30 years in the position.
Far too long for anybody's benefit.
We need a Constitutional limit on service on federal benches of either: a retirement age of 65, or; 2 successive terms of 7 years, or; a total 10-15 year term of office on any single federal bench, including the Supreme Court.
As I found while researching this prior post on the topic, the increasing lifespans of lifetime-appointed Supreme Court jurists has resulted in increasingly-rancorous fighting over the rarer vacancies.
The 22nd amendment set presidential term limits. But, of course, being a self-dealing body, Congress has conveniently neglected to finish the job for its own branch and the judicial branch, as well.
Let's begin with term limits on federal judicial appointments.
The second flaw I mentioned is the Constitution's lifetime appointment for federal judges, especially to the Supreme Court.
A little historical perspective and arithmetic illuminates this subject. Back in the 1780s, average male life expectancy was somewhere around 35. You can probably add 10-15 years when controlling for education, wealth and profession. That is, the better-educated, wealthier, less agrarian men probably lived longer due to better hygiene, knowledge of healthier habits, easier work environments, etc.
Plus, the average had to be depressed from the effect of so many uneducated farmers and frontiersmen who met with early or untimely deaths in a very rugged and dangerous environment.
Figure a lawyer or respected community figure would probably not be appointed to a federal court until in his 30s. Perhaps his 40s for the Supreme Court.
As an example, consider the nation's fourth Chief Justice, John Marshall. After a legislative and cabinet career, he ascended to the Supreme Court at the age of 46, serving until his death in 1835, at the age of 80.
Our Founding Father's probably didn't think a lot about lifetime careers in federal office. After all, they had lives to live, businesses to attend to, fortunes to make. Nobody probably gave serious consideration to the idea that anybody would want to serve in government for life.
They probably didn't think a lot about life spans, technology, diet, education, etc. I doubt they considered that better-educated, wealthier men who would be on federal benches would have corresponding longer lifespans. To the Framers, living 20 years longer than average probably gave them the notion that a Supreme Court appointment was good for about two decades, more or less.
Now, we know differently. A 50 year-old person ascending to the Supreme Court is quite likely to have a good 30 years in the position.
Far too long for anybody's benefit.
We need a Constitutional limit on service on federal benches of either: a retirement age of 65, or; 2 successive terms of 7 years, or; a total 10-15 year term of office on any single federal bench, including the Supreme Court.
As I found while researching this prior post on the topic, the increasing lifespans of lifetime-appointed Supreme Court jurists has resulted in increasingly-rancorous fighting over the rarer vacancies.
The 22nd amendment set presidential term limits. But, of course, being a self-dealing body, Congress has conveniently neglected to finish the job for its own branch and the judicial branch, as well.
Let's begin with term limits on federal judicial appointments.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
The Rule Of Law Takes Another Body Blow
As I wrote in a recent business blog post, it appeared that Indiana's treasurer might have managed to get the Supreme Court to slow the unconstitutional freight train that is the Chrysler bankruptcy.
Alas, it was not to be. The full Court declined to hear the case, stating that it failed to merit Supreme Court attention.
Tom Lauria, the plaintiff's attorney, said words to the effect that this non-decision makes one question whether the Court is capable of enforcing and protecting constitutional rights anymore.
To me, it's another reason to agitate for a Constitutional Convention. This seemed to be a pretty open-and-shut case. The federal government violated standing bankruptcy procedures and rights.
What more was to be known to allow the case to be heard?
As I said to a friend recently, the 25th amendment set term limits for the chief executive. Now, we need to finish the job for both of the other branches of the federal government.
It seems that our highest court can't focus anymore on its central job of enforcing the constitution.
I have no doubt some modifications in the form of a revised Constitution, or more amendments, could help rectify this problem.
Alas, it was not to be. The full Court declined to hear the case, stating that it failed to merit Supreme Court attention.
Tom Lauria, the plaintiff's attorney, said words to the effect that this non-decision makes one question whether the Court is capable of enforcing and protecting constitutional rights anymore.
To me, it's another reason to agitate for a Constitutional Convention. This seemed to be a pretty open-and-shut case. The federal government violated standing bankruptcy procedures and rights.
What more was to be known to allow the case to be heard?
As I said to a friend recently, the 25th amendment set term limits for the chief executive. Now, we need to finish the job for both of the other branches of the federal government.
It seems that our highest court can't focus anymore on its central job of enforcing the constitution.
I have no doubt some modifications in the form of a revised Constitution, or more amendments, could help rectify this problem.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Shelby Steele On The Sotomayor Court Nomination
Shelby Steele wrote a scathing, blunt editorial in the Wall Street Journal yesterday entitled "Sotomayor and the Politics of Race."
Steele begins his piece by observing, early on,
"The Sotomayor nomination commits the cardinal sin of identity politics: It seeks to elevate people more for the political currency of their gender and ethnicity than for their individual merit. (Here, too, is the ugly faithlessness in minority merit that always underlies such maneuverings.) Mr. Obama is promising one thing and practicing another, using his interracial background to suggest an America delivered from racial corruption even as he practices a crude form of racial patronage. From America's first black president, and a man promising the "new," we get a Supreme Court nomination that is both unoriginal and hackneyed.
This contradiction has always been at the heart of the Obama story. On the one hand there was the 2004 Democratic Convention speech proclaiming "only one America." And on the other hand there was the race-baiting of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Does this most powerful man on earth know himself well enough to resolve this contradiction and point the way to a genuinely post-racial America?"
You can never accuse of Steele, of the same race as our president, of pulling punches. Hackneyed! Unoriginal!
He continues,
"But the Sotomayor nomination shows that Mr. Obama has no idea what a post-racial society would look like. In selling himself as a candidate to the American public he is a gifted bargainer beautifully turned out in post-racial impressionism. But in the real world of Supreme Court nominations, where there is a chance to actually bring some of that idealism down to earth, he chooses a hardened, divisive and race-focused veteran of the culture wars he claims to transcend.
Sonia Sotomayor is of the generation of minorities that came of age under the hegemony of this perverse incentive. For this generation, challenging and protesting were careerism itself. This is why middle- and upper middle-class minorities are often more militant than poor and working-class minorities. America's institutions -- universities, government agencies, the media and even corporations -- reward their grievance. Minority intellectuals, especially, have been rewarded for theories that justify grievance.
And here we come to Judge Sotomayor's favorite such ingenuity: disparate impact. In the now celebrated Ricci case the city of New Haven, Conn., threw out a paper and pencil test that firefighters were required to take for promotion because so few minorities passed it. In other words, the test had a disparate and negative impact on minorities, so the lead plaintiff, Frank Ricci -- a white male with dyslexia who worked 10 hours a day to pass the test at a high level -- was effectively denied promotion because he was white. Judge Sotomayor supported the city's decision to throw out the test undoubtedly because of her commitment to disparate impact -- a concept that invariably makes whites accountable for minority mediocrity.
With the Sotomayor nomination, Mr. Obama has made the same mistake his wife made in her "This is the first time I am proud of my country" remark: bad faith toward an America that has shown him only good faith."
Elsewhere in his editorial, Steele revisits his perspective on minority politicians and how they behave towards whites, as distinct from the face they show to their own race.
Summed up, Steele reveals Wonderboy for being the ever-shifting, politically-expedient hack that he really is. Obama has dreamt up some cute concepts to fool many voters, but in the end, he's an empty suit, both in terms of accomplishments and feasible, useful concepts.
Steele begins his piece by observing, early on,
"The Sotomayor nomination commits the cardinal sin of identity politics: It seeks to elevate people more for the political currency of their gender and ethnicity than for their individual merit. (Here, too, is the ugly faithlessness in minority merit that always underlies such maneuverings.) Mr. Obama is promising one thing and practicing another, using his interracial background to suggest an America delivered from racial corruption even as he practices a crude form of racial patronage. From America's first black president, and a man promising the "new," we get a Supreme Court nomination that is both unoriginal and hackneyed.
This contradiction has always been at the heart of the Obama story. On the one hand there was the 2004 Democratic Convention speech proclaiming "only one America." And on the other hand there was the race-baiting of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Does this most powerful man on earth know himself well enough to resolve this contradiction and point the way to a genuinely post-racial America?"
You can never accuse of Steele, of the same race as our president, of pulling punches. Hackneyed! Unoriginal!
He continues,
"But the Sotomayor nomination shows that Mr. Obama has no idea what a post-racial society would look like. In selling himself as a candidate to the American public he is a gifted bargainer beautifully turned out in post-racial impressionism. But in the real world of Supreme Court nominations, where there is a chance to actually bring some of that idealism down to earth, he chooses a hardened, divisive and race-focused veteran of the culture wars he claims to transcend.
Sonia Sotomayor is of the generation of minorities that came of age under the hegemony of this perverse incentive. For this generation, challenging and protesting were careerism itself. This is why middle- and upper middle-class minorities are often more militant than poor and working-class minorities. America's institutions -- universities, government agencies, the media and even corporations -- reward their grievance. Minority intellectuals, especially, have been rewarded for theories that justify grievance.
And here we come to Judge Sotomayor's favorite such ingenuity: disparate impact. In the now celebrated Ricci case the city of New Haven, Conn., threw out a paper and pencil test that firefighters were required to take for promotion because so few minorities passed it. In other words, the test had a disparate and negative impact on minorities, so the lead plaintiff, Frank Ricci -- a white male with dyslexia who worked 10 hours a day to pass the test at a high level -- was effectively denied promotion because he was white. Judge Sotomayor supported the city's decision to throw out the test undoubtedly because of her commitment to disparate impact -- a concept that invariably makes whites accountable for minority mediocrity.
With the Sotomayor nomination, Mr. Obama has made the same mistake his wife made in her "This is the first time I am proud of my country" remark: bad faith toward an America that has shown him only good faith."
If nothing else, the Ricci case should have been enough to disqualify Sotomayor from consideration for the high court. Steele's noting that Wonderboy knew of Sotomayor's racist comments about 'wise latinas' prior to nominating her for the Supreme Court. I guess it's a new low in vetting, i.e., to find something crippling and hideous about your nominee, then push her forward anyway.
Elsewhere in his editorial, Steele revisits his perspective on minority politicians and how they behave towards whites, as distinct from the face they show to their own race.
Summed up, Steele reveals Wonderboy for being the ever-shifting, politically-expedient hack that he really is. Obama has dreamt up some cute concepts to fool many voters, but in the end, he's an empty suit, both in terms of accomplishments and feasible, useful concepts.
Monday, June 8, 2009
The Necessity of a Constitutional Convention
I've been giving quite a bit of thought recently to the obvious, increasingly unconstitutional behavior by Congress and presidents of both parties since as far back as Wilson.
Having begun reading and listening to others of similar bent, I am aware that the progressive-backed amendments of the 1910s were passed by Congress to head off a state-called Constitutional Convention. Nothing strikes more fear into the hearts of lifetime federal politicians than the prospect of a Constitutional Convention which could result in massive revisions to the Constitution, and the possibility of more explicitly-worded limits on federal power.
Consider just two simple aspects of the Constitution which probably made sense at its writing, but no longer do.
Congressional term limits. Back in 1789, an average lifespan was in the neighborhood of 35 years. To become a Senator required sufficient maturity and accomplishment that one probably didn't realistically become eligible until one's mid-30s. A 60-year old person in those days was quite old. Thus, three terms in the Senate was likely seen as about as much as most men would serve.
Further, serving in Washington required leaving one's farm or business. Being a Congressman wasn't considered a full-time job. It's likely that nobody seriously envisioned anyone being foolish enough to make federal representative office one's entire career.
Thus, between a shorter lifespan, career obligations and the need to support a family, it's quite possible that the Framers simply didn't conceive of a context in which career service as a US Representative or Senator was possible. Or even desirable.
And what about the Supreme Court? I don't have exact data, but I'm guessing that men didn't ascend to that body much before the age of 40. If a man was old upon reaching 60, then a 20-year term on the highest bench would be what was probably understood to be the 'lifetime' appointment.
Now, it's not uncommon for a Justice to serve on the Supreme Court for more than 30 years. For example, consider this passage from this webpage,
"Although the average tenure of a Supreme Court Justice from 1789 through 1970 was 14.9 years, for those Justices who have retired since 1970, the average tenure has jumped to 26.1 years. Because of the long tenure of recent members of the Court, there were no vacancies on the high Court from 1994 to the middle of 2005. We believe the American constitutional rule granting life tenure to Supreme Court Justices is fundamentally flawed, resulting now in Justices remaining on the Court for longer periods and to a later age than ever before in American history.
This trend has led to significantly less frequent vacancies on the Court, which reduces the efficacy of the democratic check that the appointment process provides on the Court's membership. The increase in the longevity of Justices' tenure means that life tenure now guarantees a much longer tenure on the Court than was the case in 1789 or over most of our constitutional history. Moreover, the combination of less frequent vacancies and longer tenures of office means that when vacancies do arise, there is so much at stake that confirmation battles have become much more intense. Finally, as was detailed in a recent article by Professor David Garrow, the advanced age of some Supreme Court Justices has at times led to a problem of "mental decrepitude" on the Court, whereby some Justices have become physically or mentally unable to fulfill their duties during the final stages of their careers."
Considering the increasing distance so many voters feel from their elected US representative officials, and the courts, I would personally favor terms limits as follows: 3 consecutive terms for US Representatives, 5 in total; 2 terms for US Senators, and; 15 years for Supreme Court Justices, with similar tenure for lower courts, as well.
Given the Constitution's brevity and limited expression of federal power, I don't believe the Framers intended that there arise a professional class of federal office-holders who would remain in that government for over a generation, i.e., 20 years. For the era of our nation's founding, 20 years would have already been a substantial portion of a man's productive adult life. Now, with much longer average lifespans, our Congress and Supreme Court seem to have become less committed to upholding the Constitution, and more committed to self-preservation.
Having begun reading and listening to others of similar bent, I am aware that the progressive-backed amendments of the 1910s were passed by Congress to head off a state-called Constitutional Convention. Nothing strikes more fear into the hearts of lifetime federal politicians than the prospect of a Constitutional Convention which could result in massive revisions to the Constitution, and the possibility of more explicitly-worded limits on federal power.
Consider just two simple aspects of the Constitution which probably made sense at its writing, but no longer do.
Congressional term limits. Back in 1789, an average lifespan was in the neighborhood of 35 years. To become a Senator required sufficient maturity and accomplishment that one probably didn't realistically become eligible until one's mid-30s. A 60-year old person in those days was quite old. Thus, three terms in the Senate was likely seen as about as much as most men would serve.
Further, serving in Washington required leaving one's farm or business. Being a Congressman wasn't considered a full-time job. It's likely that nobody seriously envisioned anyone being foolish enough to make federal representative office one's entire career.
Thus, between a shorter lifespan, career obligations and the need to support a family, it's quite possible that the Framers simply didn't conceive of a context in which career service as a US Representative or Senator was possible. Or even desirable.
And what about the Supreme Court? I don't have exact data, but I'm guessing that men didn't ascend to that body much before the age of 40. If a man was old upon reaching 60, then a 20-year term on the highest bench would be what was probably understood to be the 'lifetime' appointment.
Now, it's not uncommon for a Justice to serve on the Supreme Court for more than 30 years. For example, consider this passage from this webpage,
"Although the average tenure of a Supreme Court Justice from 1789 through 1970 was 14.9 years, for those Justices who have retired since 1970, the average tenure has jumped to 26.1 years. Because of the long tenure of recent members of the Court, there were no vacancies on the high Court from 1994 to the middle of 2005. We believe the American constitutional rule granting life tenure to Supreme Court Justices is fundamentally flawed, resulting now in Justices remaining on the Court for longer periods and to a later age than ever before in American history.
This trend has led to significantly less frequent vacancies on the Court, which reduces the efficacy of the democratic check that the appointment process provides on the Court's membership. The increase in the longevity of Justices' tenure means that life tenure now guarantees a much longer tenure on the Court than was the case in 1789 or over most of our constitutional history. Moreover, the combination of less frequent vacancies and longer tenures of office means that when vacancies do arise, there is so much at stake that confirmation battles have become much more intense. Finally, as was detailed in a recent article by Professor David Garrow, the advanced age of some Supreme Court Justices has at times led to a problem of "mental decrepitude" on the Court, whereby some Justices have become physically or mentally unable to fulfill their duties during the final stages of their careers."
Considering the increasing distance so many voters feel from their elected US representative officials, and the courts, I would personally favor terms limits as follows: 3 consecutive terms for US Representatives, 5 in total; 2 terms for US Senators, and; 15 years for Supreme Court Justices, with similar tenure for lower courts, as well.
Given the Constitution's brevity and limited expression of federal power, I don't believe the Framers intended that there arise a professional class of federal office-holders who would remain in that government for over a generation, i.e., 20 years. For the era of our nation's founding, 20 years would have already been a substantial portion of a man's productive adult life. Now, with much longer average lifespans, our Congress and Supreme Court seem to have become less committed to upholding the Constitution, and more committed to self-preservation.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Sotomayor's Second Chance
I happened to be watching a news channel today when Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont solemnly intoned that, after asking racist Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor the meaning of her oft-quoted remarks about 'wise latinas,' she provided him an answer that has completely set his doubting little Democratic mind at ease.
Oh yes, because Pat was really- I mean, really- considering voting against her nomination.
Somehow, Leahy assured one and all, Sotomayor just forgot to add that she meant a 'wise latina' could interpret how to apply the appropriate law better than a white male.
See the difference?
Before, Sotomayor's remark was clearly racist, and something in which she reveled, being, well, you know.....a wise latina. With appropriate minority life experience, including poverty, struggles, and all the things that only non-white, or non-males can claim as valuable qualifications.
But, now that she's up for the high court, she is of course accorded a second chance on every utterance, written word, etc., that has been recorded and might trip her up.
So, no surprise, Sotomayor now she remembers that she meant to refer to applying the law as a wise latina.
Apparently, the life experience stuff was misinterpreted by all of us.
Yes, indeedy!!
Now that Sonia has had help donning the white, fleecy garments of innocence, her wolfish fangs are hidden, as is the truth of anything she said in her former judicial, or the rest of her life, that might possibly cause some Democrat in the Senate to have such shame at voting for this racist jurist that s/he'd actually decline to confirm her.
Appearances must be preserved!
Aren't second chances wonderful? Just the best! You get to take back anything you said, did or wrote in the past that actually got you to where you are. Now, you can just renounce it all, as the Omega job in your profession appears within reach!
And it's logical to believe that they will for the liberal Senators. After all, didn't voters swallow Wonderboy's speedy move away from Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, after which he denied ever really having been close to either of them, or sharing their views? Essentially repudiating what got him elected state Senator from South Chicago?
Hey, if it worked for the First Rookie, who is a certified minority, why shouldn't Sonia try it, too?
Buckle up and grab an airsick bag. It's going to be a disgusting confirmation hearing, as Wonderboy tries to frog march the Senate to meet his demand that this racist be confirmed for the Supreme Court prior to its summer recess.
Oh yes, because Pat was really- I mean, really- considering voting against her nomination.
Somehow, Leahy assured one and all, Sotomayor just forgot to add that she meant a 'wise latina' could interpret how to apply the appropriate law better than a white male.
See the difference?
Before, Sotomayor's remark was clearly racist, and something in which she reveled, being, well, you know.....a wise latina. With appropriate minority life experience, including poverty, struggles, and all the things that only non-white, or non-males can claim as valuable qualifications.
But, now that she's up for the high court, she is of course accorded a second chance on every utterance, written word, etc., that has been recorded and might trip her up.
So, no surprise, Sotomayor now she remembers that she meant to refer to applying the law as a wise latina.
Apparently, the life experience stuff was misinterpreted by all of us.
Yes, indeedy!!
Now that Sonia has had help donning the white, fleecy garments of innocence, her wolfish fangs are hidden, as is the truth of anything she said in her former judicial, or the rest of her life, that might possibly cause some Democrat in the Senate to have such shame at voting for this racist jurist that s/he'd actually decline to confirm her.
Appearances must be preserved!
Aren't second chances wonderful? Just the best! You get to take back anything you said, did or wrote in the past that actually got you to where you are. Now, you can just renounce it all, as the Omega job in your profession appears within reach!
And it's logical to believe that they will for the liberal Senators. After all, didn't voters swallow Wonderboy's speedy move away from Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, after which he denied ever really having been close to either of them, or sharing their views? Essentially repudiating what got him elected state Senator from South Chicago?
Hey, if it worked for the First Rookie, who is a certified minority, why shouldn't Sonia try it, too?
Buckle up and grab an airsick bag. It's going to be a disgusting confirmation hearing, as Wonderboy tries to frog march the Senate to meet his demand that this racist be confirmed for the Supreme Court prior to its summer recess.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Wonderboy's Racist Supreme Court Nominee
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”
That's the key quote from Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, currently a federal Appellate Court judge. Never mind that such a statement, if reserved and uttered by a white male, would result in hounding him from whatever position he currently occupied.
Missing, of course, are trivialities such as: the facts of a case, and the law applicable to the case.
Details....details......
This is Wonderboy's idea of a post-partisan, post-racial administration. The most explicitly racist Supreme Court choice since Roger B. Taney. Only, now, the racism runs against whites and males. With this nomination, the first rookie has made public his explicit intent to violate his oath of office. In this case, by nominating a judge who intends, based upon her prior statements, to ignore the rule of law, and, instead, rule on the basis of outcomes, based upon her latina heritage.
Since confirmation in the Senate for Supreme Court justices requires only a simple majority, it's very likely Red Sonia will be replacing Souter.
There are so many things wrong with this choice that it's hard to know where to start. But the media is, as usual, already in the tank.
One liberal commentator on a cable news channel began by lauding her minority background, then promptly stated that it had nothing to do with her nomination. That she is the best-qualified jurist in the land to replace Souter.
Huh?
Somehow I doubt this woman is actually the most-qualified jurist for the ninth seat on the country's highest judicial bench. Not because she's female, or hispanic. Rather, because she's so relatively junior to other jurists.
Of course, by nominating Sotomayor, Wonderboy has sent a clear signal that he has no intention of being bi-partisan or unifying. He's trying to overturn the Constitution while his party has a majority in Congress, thus insuring that he won't be impeached.
But he should be.
That's the key quote from Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, currently a federal Appellate Court judge. Never mind that such a statement, if reserved and uttered by a white male, would result in hounding him from whatever position he currently occupied.
Missing, of course, are trivialities such as: the facts of a case, and the law applicable to the case.
Details....details......
This is Wonderboy's idea of a post-partisan, post-racial administration. The most explicitly racist Supreme Court choice since Roger B. Taney. Only, now, the racism runs against whites and males. With this nomination, the first rookie has made public his explicit intent to violate his oath of office. In this case, by nominating a judge who intends, based upon her prior statements, to ignore the rule of law, and, instead, rule on the basis of outcomes, based upon her latina heritage.
Since confirmation in the Senate for Supreme Court justices requires only a simple majority, it's very likely Red Sonia will be replacing Souter.
There are so many things wrong with this choice that it's hard to know where to start. But the media is, as usual, already in the tank.
One liberal commentator on a cable news channel began by lauding her minority background, then promptly stated that it had nothing to do with her nomination. That she is the best-qualified jurist in the land to replace Souter.
Huh?
Somehow I doubt this woman is actually the most-qualified jurist for the ninth seat on the country's highest judicial bench. Not because she's female, or hispanic. Rather, because she's so relatively junior to other jurists.
Of course, by nominating Sotomayor, Wonderboy has sent a clear signal that he has no intention of being bi-partisan or unifying. He's trying to overturn the Constitution while his party has a majority in Congress, thus insuring that he won't be impeached.
But he should be.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Finally- Grounds For Impeachment
Not that I think it will happen, of course, with a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. But this past week, Wonderboy finally provided the nation with an unequivocal basis to impeach him. In fact, so blatant was it that it merited an editorial in the pages of the Wall Street Journal.
The issue, of course, is our First Rookie's call for the Supreme Court judge to replace retiring Souter to be 'empathetic,' and to treat each case on the basis of its particular facts, rather than the law.
I wrote in this recent post about Constitutional grounds on which one can find fault with Wonderboy's recent actions,
"Stein noted that the underlying problem with this administration, the prior one, and the Congress, is its unconstitutional behavior.
The takings of AIG, summary firing of GM's CEO, without being a shareholder, and forcible injection of government into our large banks, are all basically violations of the Constitution."
Now, David Lewis Shaefer, a political science professor at Holy Cross, writes,
"The price of what Mr. Obama calls judicial pragmatism or empathy is a willingness to disregard the rule of law, the democratic process, and the Constitutional text in favor of judges' own idiosyncratic notions of fairness. And that is hard to square with the president's constitutional duty to take care that the laws and Constitution are faithfully executed."
I am reminded, in all of this, of the Bork confirmation hearings. Teddy Kennedy kept spewing about Bork not having considered the individual situation of some plaintiff in a case involving a trucking company and a union.
Bork attempted to educate the Massachusetts Senator regarding the rules governing how the case could be considered by the appellate court, on which Bork sat at the time. The esteemed jurist noted that only points of law which were being appealed were basis for consideration, and nothing else. That's the law.
Kennedy would have none of it, insisting Bork was a cold-hearted, nasty man. Lacking in 'empathy,' as it were.
Bork was right then, as Schaefer is now.
Only this time, we can actually use the sitting president's own words against him. He has plainly indicated that he will seek to choose and nominate a Supreme Court justice on the basis of their likelihood to ignore law, and use 'empathy,' instead, to decide cases.
This is a subversion of his oath of office, in that he will be explicitly trying to undermine our Constitution, an oath to uphold which he took upon entering his current office.
It doesn't get much clearer than this. If only we had a Congress that would respect and enforce the Constitution.
The issue, of course, is our First Rookie's call for the Supreme Court judge to replace retiring Souter to be 'empathetic,' and to treat each case on the basis of its particular facts, rather than the law.
I wrote in this recent post about Constitutional grounds on which one can find fault with Wonderboy's recent actions,
"Stein noted that the underlying problem with this administration, the prior one, and the Congress, is its unconstitutional behavior.
The takings of AIG, summary firing of GM's CEO, without being a shareholder, and forcible injection of government into our large banks, are all basically violations of the Constitution."
Now, David Lewis Shaefer, a political science professor at Holy Cross, writes,
"The price of what Mr. Obama calls judicial pragmatism or empathy is a willingness to disregard the rule of law, the democratic process, and the Constitutional text in favor of judges' own idiosyncratic notions of fairness. And that is hard to square with the president's constitutional duty to take care that the laws and Constitution are faithfully executed."
I am reminded, in all of this, of the Bork confirmation hearings. Teddy Kennedy kept spewing about Bork not having considered the individual situation of some plaintiff in a case involving a trucking company and a union.
Bork attempted to educate the Massachusetts Senator regarding the rules governing how the case could be considered by the appellate court, on which Bork sat at the time. The esteemed jurist noted that only points of law which were being appealed were basis for consideration, and nothing else. That's the law.
Kennedy would have none of it, insisting Bork was a cold-hearted, nasty man. Lacking in 'empathy,' as it were.
Bork was right then, as Schaefer is now.
Only this time, we can actually use the sitting president's own words against him. He has plainly indicated that he will seek to choose and nominate a Supreme Court justice on the basis of their likelihood to ignore law, and use 'empathy,' instead, to decide cases.
This is a subversion of his oath of office, in that he will be explicitly trying to undermine our Constitution, an oath to uphold which he took upon entering his current office.
It doesn't get much clearer than this. If only we had a Congress that would respect and enforce the Constitution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
