Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Another David Souter; matbe a liberal in disguise
Topic Started: Oct 3 2005, 09:40 AM (555 Views)
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Agreed, and would apply it to legislative and executive branches as well.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomdrobin
Member
quote: ""While I am pleased the president has named a woman to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor," said Feinstein, the only woman on the Judiciary Committee, "it remains critically important that the Senate Judiciary Committee, and, indeed, the American people learn more about her positions on some of the most important issues facing our nation."

This statement seems to me what is rotten to the core about the attitude of many politicians about supreme court nominees. It's as if they felt judicial activism was to be expected one way or another. You hear the terms "judicial philosophy", and "political ideology" brought up repeatedly. I would think the ideal candidate possessed neither and rather was committed to upholding the strict interpretation of the constitution within the limits intended by the founders.

Time will tell, but I think GW has pulled off a couple of stealth nominations. Ones that the libs can't find enough on to block their confirmations. But, ones that will reverse the trend towards judicial activism and trying to legislate from the bench to further their own ideology.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
I agree 100%, Tom, Feinstein is insisting only a liberal activist is acceptable, someone who at a federal level will impose her political ideology and agenda on states and individuals. With Feinstein, Kennedy, and other Dems I think that is a gven. Not quite so well recognized and understood is we are hearing the same thing from the religious right social conservatives who insist the only acceptable judge is one who would impose their political ideology and agenda on states and individuals, who are insisting thereby on liberal activism. That is why I focus on them.

So I would change your conclusion slightly and say "Ones that the liberal Dems can't find enough on to block their confirmations. " and then add "Ones that the liberal Reps can't find enough on to block their confirmations. "


By way of clarification, political ideology has to do with stances on political issues, i.e., pro-life v pro-choice. Judicial philosophy has to do with the basis of how one adjudicates, i.e., liberal activist v conservative consructionist. It does get somewhat muddled though when someone like Scalia preaches and practices something like originalism, which may be a political spin on judicial philosophy.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Noonan, The Miers Misstep: What was President Bush thinking?

Reasons?
Quote:
 
The headline lately is that conservatives are stiffing the president. They're in uproar over Ms. Miers, in rebellion over spending, critical over cronyism. But the real story continues to be that the president feels so free to stiff conservatives. The White House is not full of stupid people. They knew conservatives would be disappointed that the president chose his lawyer for the high court. They knew conservatives would eventually awaken over spending. They knew someone would tag them on putting friends in high places. They knew conservatives would not like the big-government impulses revealed in the response to Hurricane Katrina. The headline is not that this White House endlessly bows to the right but that it is not at all afraid of the right. Why? This strikes me as the most interesting question.

Here are some maybes. Maybe the president has simply concluded he has no more elections to face and no longer needs his own troops to wage the ground war and contribute money. Maybe with no more elections to face he's indulging a desire to show them who's boss. Maybe he has concluded he has a deep and unwavering strain of support within the party that, come what may, will stick with him no matter what. Maybe he isn't all that conservative a fellow, or at least all that conservative in the old, usual ways, and has been waiting for someone to notice. Maybe he has decided the era of hoping for small government is over. Maybe he is a big-government Republican who has a shrewder and more deeply informed sense of the right than his father did, but who ultimately sees the right not as a thing he is of but a thing he must appease, defy, please or manipulate. Maybe after five years he is fully revealing himself. Maybe he is unveiling a new path that he has not fully articulated--he'll call the shots from his gut and leave the commentary to the eggheads. Maybe he's totally blowing it with his base, and in so doing endangering the present meaning and future prospects of his party.

One of my own: Bush is miffed no one climbed on the social security reform band wagon. Conservatives betrayed him, and like many social cons, he feels justified in giving it back in spades. Revenge is sweet.


But back to Noonan, who this time, imo, goes off the deep end:
Quote:
 
And so the historical irony: Supreme Court justices are more powerful than ever while who and what they are is more mysterious than ever. We have a two part problem. The first is that no one knows what they think until they're there. The other is that they're there forever.
I find myself lately not passionately supporting or opposing any particular nominee. But I'd give a great deal to see Supreme Court justices term-limited. They should be picked not for life but for a specific term of specific length, and then be released back into the community. This would involve amending the Constitution. Why not? We'd amend it to ban flag-burning, even though a fool burning a flag can't possibly harm our country. But a Kelo decision and a court unrebuked for it can really tear the fabric of a nation.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
White House adviser Ed Gillespie suggested that some of the unease about Miers "has a whiff of sexism and a whiff of elitism."

Apparently Hume on FOX echoed this sentiment.


Something of an explanation: Gods vs. Geeks: GOP evangelicals fight intellectuals over Harriet Miers.
Quote:
 
The debate within the Republican Party over Harriet Miers has quickly devolved into a simple question: Is the nominee qualified because of her religious faith, or unqualified by her lack of intellectual heft? On the one side, James Dobson, Miers' fellow parishioners at Valley View Christian Church, and President Bush speak for her heart. On the other, George Will and William Kristol and others who swooned for John Roberts decry her unimpressive legal mind.



That author forgot another pro-liberal-activist "Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) [who] has declined to embrace the nomination. Brownback drew a line in the sand before he voted for John Roberts by making it clear that he wanted the next nominee to have a clear jurisprudential track record on Roe vs. Wade." Supreme Splits: Conservatives struggle with Miers nomination
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
A Sampling of the Writings of Harriet Miers

Quote:
 
What kind of Supreme Court justice would Harriet Miers be? For anyone trying to assess her qualifications, analyze her philosophy and predict her behavior, Miers would seem to present a fairly blank slate. She has no judicial resume and hasn't left a long trail of noteworthy memos, briefs, oral argument transcripts or law journal articles.

Gay Rights

An indication of her stance on gay rights comes from this questionaire from the Lesbian/Gay Political Coalition of Dallas Miers filled out while running for the Dallas City Council in 1989. In it, she supported full civil rights for gays and lesbians and backed AIDS education programs for the city of Dallas. (Source: Quorumreport.com)

Views on the Law

Elsewhere, a search for indications of her personal views and writing skills turned up two articles penned by Miers for the legal publication Texas Lawyer. They show a concern for the rule of law—and an emphasis on collegiality, compromise and determination:

In 1992, while president of the state bar, Miers wrote in the publication Texas Lawyer about the effect on the criminal justice system of an episode in a Fort Worth courthouse, where in July of that year, a man angry about his divorce went on a shooting spree, killing two lawyers and wounding two judges and a prosecutor before surrendering at a TV station:


# "The same liberties that ensure a free society make the innocent vulnerable to those who prevent rights and privileges and commit senseless and cruel acts. Those precious liberties include free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of liberties, access to public places, the right to bear arms and freedom from constant surveillance. We are not willing to sacrifice these rights because of the acts of maniacs."

# "Punishment of wrongdoers should be swift and sure. Only then can the criminal justice system serve as an effective deterrent. Those who would choose a rule of man rather than the rule of law must not escape fitting penalty. Again, the lack of adequate resources to support an overburdened criminal justice system looms as a reality. Punishment may come swift and sure in the Fort Worth slayings case because of their notoriety. But we cannot forget the other cases crying for justice languishing in courts throughout Texas and the nation."

# "We all can be active in some way to address the social issues that foster criminal behavior, such as: lack of self-esteem or hope in some segments of our society, poverty, lack of health care (particularly mental health care), lack of education, and family dysfunction."

# "We lawyers are trained in problem-solving and we have the leadership and other opportunities available to professionals in our society. The two men who died exemplified individuals devoted to their God, their families, their fellow man, their communities and their profession. Speakers in both memorial services, used the very same words: ‘Well done, good and faithful servant.’"

# "Our sense of helplessness and inability to understand why tragedies like these have to occur should not cause anyone to attempt to explain the Fort Worth shootings as expressions of frustration with judges, lawyers or the justice system. Plain and simple, they are despicable acts—examples of the worst nature of man. The rest of us are challenged even more to demonstrate the best."
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Gingrich, while a bit effusive in praise of Bush's conservatism, I think hits the mark in his appraisal: Conservatives can trust in Miers, but his focus is conservative, it focuses on Mier's promise to "strictly apply the laws and the Constitution."

His does not get tripped up in social conservative hypocrasy, as pointed out in Now Religion Is an Issue?
Quote:
 
Now we know: President Bush's supporters are prepared to be thoroughly hypocritical when it comes to religion. They'll play religion up or down, whichever helps them most in a political fight.

Shortly after Bush named John Roberts to the Supreme Court, a few Democrats, including Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., suggested that the nominee might reasonably be questioned about the impact of his religious faith on his decisions as a justice.

Durbin had his head taken off. ``We have no religious tests for public office in this country,'' thundered Sen. John Cornyn, R Texas, insisting that any inquiry about a potential judge's religious views was ``offensive.'' Fidelis, a conservative Catholic group, declared that ``Roberts' religious faith and how he lives that faith as an individual has no bearing and no place in the confirmation process.''

But now that Harriet Miers, Bush's latest Supreme Court nominee, is in trouble with conservatives, her religious faith and how she lives that faith are becoming central to the case being made for her by the administration and its supporters. Miers has almost no public record. Don't worry, the administration's allies are telling their friends on the right, she's an evangelical Christian....

The use of Miers' religion as a magnet for conservative support is not just the work of a few religious voices. It's part of the administration's strategy....

Let's be clear: It is pro-administration conservatives, not those terrible liberals, who are making an issue of Miers' evangelical faith. Liberals are not opposing Miers because she is an evangelical. Conservatives are telling their friends to support Miers because she is an evangelical.

There is, however, some good news. A significant number of conservatives are outraged over the administration's look-at-her faith campaign....

And Ed Morrissey, whose ``Captain's Quarters'' is one of the most popular conservative blogs, said publicly what other concerned conservatives have said privately. ``The push by more enthusiastic Miers supporters to consider her religious outlook smacks of a bit of hypocrisy,'' Morrissey wrote. ``After all, we argued the exact opposite when it came to John Roberts and William Pryor when they appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee. ... Conservatives claimed that using religion as a reason for rejection violated the Constitution and any notion of religious freedom. Does that really change if we base our support on the same grounds?''
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply