John McCain, setting the record straight about Sam Alito:
“Let me just look you in the eye,” McCain told me. “I’ve said a thousand times on this campaign trail, I’ve said as often as I can, that I want to find clones of Alito and Roberts. I worked as hard as anybody to get them confirmed. I look you in the eye and tell you I’ve said a thousand times that I wanted Alito and Roberts. I have told anybody who will listen. I flat-out tell you I will have people as close to Roberts and Alito [as possible], and I am proud of my record of working to get them confirmed, and people who worked to get them confirmed will tell you how hard I worked.”
“I don’t get it,” McCain continued. “I have a clear record of that. All I can tell you is my record is clear: I’ve supported these guys. I went to the floor of the Senate and spoke in favor of them. It’s in the record, saying, ‘You’ve got to confirm these people.’”
John McCain has serious work to do to win votes from conservatives: campaign finance, pharma-bashing, global warming hysteria, etc. But can we please end this idiotic meme that McCain is weak on judges?
Tom posted this at 5:44 PM HKT on Monday, January 28th, 2008 as Audacity of Hype, I, For One, Welcome Our Judicial Overlords!
11 Comments »
Dahlia Lithwick:
Today’s oral argument in Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. United States is about nothing less than whether the Bush administration’s war on terror—endless in its geographic reach and indefinite across time—will become the instrument of the great writ’s demise.
Um, no. Here’s a nice statement of the questions the cases actually discussed. “The great writ,” as I have grown tired of hearing it called this week, has survived Edward II, Richard III, Henry VIII, Charles I, Oliver Cromwell, James II, George III, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt. I humbly submit that if George W. Bush intentionally set out to destroy Habeas Corpus he could not, if given 40 years in the presidency.
No, it seems to me the question is this: Is the American judiciary hell-bent on granting rights to foreigners captured by American servicemen fighting on foreign soil? If so, I suspect in future wars it will be easier to just shoot them on the battlefield rather than try to defend at their endless habeas hearings. Though I suspect it won’t much matter, since wars are petty things best managed by elderly men in black robes.
Apollo posted this at 3:17 AM HKT on Friday, December 7th, 2007 as I, For One, Welcome Our Judicial Overlords!, We don't need no stinkin' Constitution
No Comments »
I may not agree with the Family Research Council on everything — I’m pro-choice but anti-Roe — but Tony Perkins is absolutely correct in his analysis of Rudy Giuliani’s statements about judicial appointments:
To [Giuliani's] credit (he is more consistent than some of his proponents are), he stood by the remarks he made last May at the GOP presidential debate at the Reagan library.
Those remarks were very clear.
Giuliani said that it would be “OK” with him if a Supreme Court judge upheld Roe on strict constructionist grounds.
“It would be OK to repeal it,” he said, adding: “It would be OK also if a strict constructionist viewed it as precedent.”
This quotation has been cited, with good reason, by many Giuliani critics who are rightly concerned that, as president, it licenses him to appoint any number of judicial candidates who will leave Roe v. Wade exactly as it is.
In other contexts since the May debate, he has stood by the view that strict constructionism can coexist with Roe.
“Strict constructionists,” he has said, “can look at it [Roe] and say, it has been the law for this period of time, therefore we can respect the precedent.”
That’s not a judicial philosophy I want our next president to have. The Constitution is supposed to mean what it says; if someone got that wrong in the past, we are obliged to correct our interpretation, no matter how long that interpretation has been in place, how well-intended it was, or even how morally right it is (which it isn’t in the case of abortion, if you ask me).
This is one of the reasons I won’t vote for Rudy in the primaries and will have to think about it hard before doing deciding in the general election.
H/T: Andrew Sullivan
Tom posted this at 3:23 PM HKT on Wednesday, November 21st, 2007 as Audacity of Hype, I, For One, Welcome Our Judicial Overlords!
No Comments »
Of this I am certain: In the few hundred pages of his new book, Thomas has managed to undo years of effort by his colleagues to depoliticize the judicial branch.-Dahlia Lithwick
Yeah, after years of completely apolitical decisions like finding a constitutional right to butseks, a constitutional right to remove a baby from the womb and kill it (which was revoked within a couple of years thanks to a thoughtfully considered change of heart by the court a new appointment), that the 14th amendment’s equal protection will apply to white kids applying to college in 2028 but not now…
The Court’s been trying real hard to look apolitical. And now Justice Thomas comes along and ruins all that hard work.
Apollo posted this at 9:21 AM HKT on Tuesday, October 2nd, 2007 as I, For One, Welcome Our Judicial Overlords!
No Comments »
The sad state of the American death penalty has created a situation where, given the option between killing the condemned in a manner that is dignified and humane or killing the condemned in a way that appears dignified and humane, we think appearance is more important than reality. So we get crap like this:
Prison staff had problems finding a useable vein on Clark, and one vein they did use collapsed. The execution team also apparently tried to administer the lethal drugs through the original IV line by mistake, according to written accounts that the execution team is required to submit.
During the first injection attempt, Clark finally pushed himself up and said, “It don’t work.”
During the second attempt at finding a vein, he asked, “Can you just give me something by mouth to end this?”
This man deserved to die, but he did not deserve to die like that. No one does, but this is where the pursuit of uncruelty has led. A sensible and humane execution lets a man die on his feet (or at least nearly so). Not strapped to some gurney like a sick dog.
The problems during the execution led the state to change its lethal injection process to ensure that veins can be found more carefully and quickly to avoid similar delays.
But in May, an execution team again struggled to find veins in another inmate’s arm. Christopher Newton died nearly two hours after the scheduled start of his execution.
Executions, yes; lethal injection, no.
Apollo posted this at 9:37 AM HKT on Tuesday, July 3rd, 2007 as Brave New Worlds, I, For One, Welcome Our Judicial Overlords!
12 Comments »
It has long been apparent that conservatives and liberals were fighting bitterly over Supreme Court appointments. The warfare reached perhaps its lowest point when Ted Kennedy, knowing that being on the Senate floor gave him immunity from a slander lawsuit, said this of Robert Bork:
Robert Bork’s America is a land inwhich 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.
Still, even as politicians threw off the veneer of civility, most mainstream liberals attempted to find some polite justification. It looks like E.J. Dionne has just removed even that fig leaf:
Just say no.
The Senate’s Democratic majority — joined by all Republicans who purport to be moderate — must tell President Bush that this will be their answer to any controversial nominee to the Supreme Court or the appellate courts.
The Senate should refuse even to hold hearings on Bush’s next Supreme Court choice, should a vacancy occur, unless the president reaches agreement with the Senate majority on a mutually acceptable list of nominees.
Dionne’s justification for this, however, is much more interesting:
If another conservative replaces a member of the court’s moderate-to-liberal bloc, the country will be set on a conservative course for the next decade or more, locking in today’s politics at the very moment when the electorate is running out of patience with the right.
Did Dionne complain when Bill Clinton replaced the conservative Byron White with the left-wing Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Wasn’t the electorate running out of patience with the left then? It’s refreshingly honest, I’ll admit, to see him assume that the court will be “locking in today’s politics,” but if you admit that, you’re assuming that the court is not about principles but power.
Dionne also throws out this inflammatory accusation:
And if conservatives claim to believe the president is owed deference on his court appointees, they will be — I choose this word deliberately — lying [emphasis added]. In 2005 conservatives had no problem blocking Bush’s appointment of Harriet Miers because they could not count on her to be a strong voice for their legal causes. They revealed that their view of judicial battles is not about principle but power. When they went after Miers, conservatives lost the deference argument.
Er, no. The right, from Pat Buchanan to Virginia Postrel, opposed Miers on the grounds that she had no clear principles. And conservatives didn’t block her appointment with a filibuster or by voting her down on the Senate floor or in commitee. They argued, on talk radio and in the blogosphere, against the appointment, and Bush withdrew the nomination. Dionne doesn’t so much argue as steal bases. He thinks that the court is not about principles but power, and so assumes that his opponents think that way, too. If he’s still wondering why Americans hate politics, he should reflect on his column—after he’s calmed down a bit.
Hubbard posted this at 12:01 PM HKT on Friday, June 29th, 2007 as I, For One, Welcome Our Judicial Overlords!, Politics
No Comments »
Remember when Freedom of Speech meant freedom of speech?
I seem to recall a few men, say oh about 230 odd years ago, who had something to say on this issue. They too got in trouble for saying things that promoted illegal activities. They got together and crafted a document that guaranteed the right to free speech.
If only someone would appoint justices whose goal it was to preserve the original intent of the founding fathers.
Jamie posted this at 2:02 PM HKT on Monday, June 25th, 2007 as I, For One, Welcome Our Judicial Overlords!
2 Comments »
Justice 1 Judge 0
UPDATE: In even sweeter news the douchebag judge has to pay the dry cleaners court costs. This is the kind of tort reform that should become permanent in America. I know that in Singapore, where I used to live, court costs for both parties always fall on the losing party and this more than anything serves to curb frivolous lawsuits. Now if the dry cleaners would kindly win a counter-suit for embarrassment, pain, financial and emotional damages to the tune of say oh $54M then maybe we could have some real justice.
Jamie posted this at 10:50 AM HKT on Monday, June 25th, 2007 as I, For One, Welcome Our Judicial Overlords!
No Comments »
Did he really agrue this?
Isn’t if funny that the only examples that pro-torture conservatives can find of “ticking time bomb” scenarios or torture being necessary to save lives is from a fictional tv show?
Jamie posted this at 2:00 PM HKT on Tuesday, June 19th, 2007 as Excruciatingly Correct Behavior, I, For One, Welcome Our Judicial Overlords!, Uncategorized
1 Comment »
In this comment, I said that the news in this Supreme Court term is that Anthony Kennedy is sticking with conservatives more often than not. I also predicted that this will result in far more attacks on him from liberal observers who are now discovering that he’s not such a great guy after all.
Here, though, are some numbers. The court has released 15 opinions decided on a 5-4 vote this term (more than a quarter of the opinions so far; this is more than twice the percentage of 5-4 votes as last term). Of those, 3 have had what we might call not storyline majorities (two featured Roberts, Kennedy, and Alito siding with Souter and Breyer; another featured Kennedy and Alito siding with Steven, Ginsburg, and Breyer).
So there are 12 decisions with the storyline 5-4 conservative/liberal split (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito on one side, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer on the other, with Kennedy as a swing vote). Of those, Kennedy has sided with the conservatives 7 times, though this does not quit tell the whole story. 3 of the cases where he decided with liberals were sorta related Texas death penalty cases, released on the same day (Smith v. Texas, Brewer v. Quarterman, and Abdul-Kamir v. Quarterman). The only headline case so far where he has gone with the liberals is Massachusetts v. EPA, which has in common with the Texas cases a serious opportunity for moralizing.
We’ll see more 5-4 cases in the next couple of weeks. I think the instances of Kennedy sticking with the conservatives will become more and more obvious. However, judging by the fifteen 5-4 decisions so far this term, one thing’s for sure: AMK will be in the majority of every single 5-4 case.
Apollo posted this at 1:41 AM HKT on Friday, June 15th, 2007 as I, For One, Welcome Our Judicial Overlords!, We don't need no stinkin' Constitution
No Comments »
Jeffrey Rosen (H/T) takes apart Justice Kennedy:
[Kennedy's] performance in Bush v. Gore was similarly melodramatic. Kennedy initially joined the four liberals who wanted to allow the Florida recount to continue, but, after a brief show of agonizing, he changed his mind. This left Justices Breyer and Souter—who thought they could win Kennedy’s vote—with their hands extended, played for dupes. In the per curiam opinion itself, which Kennedy drafted on his own, his muddy writing style and self-aggrandizing conception of the Court’s role are on full display. “When contending parties invoke the process of the courts,” he wrote pompously, “it becomes our unsought responsibility to resolve the federal and constitutional issues the judicial system has been forced to confront.” Note the false modesty and the feint at shrinking from the burden of an “unsought responsibility.” Of course, it was the Court, at Kennedy’s insistence, that decided to settle a debate Congress would have resolved.
Ouch.
Hubbard posted this at 5:31 PM HKT on Thursday, June 14th, 2007 as I, For One, Welcome Our Judicial Overlords!, The Law Is An Ass--An Idiot
1 Comment »
Never have the courts done so much good in a single day:
WASHINGTON (CNN) –A Washington state law restricting use of union dues for political purposes was upheld Wednesday by the Supreme Court, in a pair of cases that melded free speech, election advocacy and workplace rights.At issue was whether states could force labor unions to obtain direct permission from workers before having their mandatory “shop fees” spent on partisan politics, including candidates and issues many of them may not support.
“No suppression of ideas is afoot,” wrote Justice Antonin Scalia, “since the union remains free as any other entity to participate in the electoral process with all available funds other than the state-coerced agency fees lacking affirmative permission.”
State officials were among those who brought the high court appeal, on behalf of a few thousand public school teachers who refused to join their union. Under a voter-approved ballot initiative, those non-union workers can still be charged an annual service fee — equal in amount to union dues — but only to help pay for traditional labor negotiations. Those fees cannot be spent on most types of political activities, under the 1992 law, “unless affirmatively authorized by the individual.”
The sticking point was how and when teachers must express their opposition to having their fees used to influence elections.
– CNN Supreme Court Producer Bill Mears
So if you’re forced to join a union (like me) because of the job you have (damn you PGA and WGA), they can no longer use your dues for causes you don’t agree with. I love America.
Jamie posted this at 12:59 PM HKT on Thursday, June 14th, 2007 as Amer-I-Can!, I, For One, Welcome Our Judicial Overlords!
1 Comment »
New Jersey Chief Justice James R. Zazzali has struck a blow for private property rights, and those of us who still believe in that quaint little document called The Constitution.
My favorite bit:
“The New Jersey Constitution does not permit government redevelopment of private property solely because the property is not used in an optimal manner,” Zazzali wrote.
Damn right! If someone owns land and doesn’t feel like selling it so that it can be redeveloped into a new stripmall or housing complex it is his god given right to do so. Its not up to the government to decide the “best use” of anything much less someone’s private property.
A tip of the hat to Justice Zazzali.
Jamie posted this at 12:34 PM HKT on Thursday, June 14th, 2007 as I, For One, Welcome Our Judicial Overlords!
No Comments »
Fred Thompson continues to impress. Importantly, I’ve been very disappointed in Rudy’s assertions that he might appoint “strict constructionist” justices who would uphold Roe. Conservatives have come too far and had too many disappointments in our efforts to return the Court to a proper bearing to risk another Souter or Kennedy. Thompson gives significantly better answers regarding the Court.
Also worthwhile, at around 9:30, Peter Robinson asks, “You’re a movement conservative?” To which Thompson looks mildly bemused, as though he’s never thought of it in those terms, and says, “I guess I must be.” It’s the perfect response.
Apollo posted this at 5:37 PM HKT on Wednesday, June 13th, 2007 as Audacity of Hype, I, For One, Welcome Our Judicial Overlords!
No Comments »