Harriet Miers

[PanTheMan]

Mick Jagger on Monday night dedicated 'Back Of My Hand' to Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers during DC Rolling Stones concert...

Troubles Coming, I can read it like the back of my hand, I see misery, and paranoia, I can read it like the back of my hand...

(Really quite a nice Blues tune...)

[Ghoulish Delight]

Press conference with Bush this morning. I swear, I hate listening to that man answer questions. But anyway, a couple things struck me as interesting and made me feel less than comfortable with the nomination.

First, he said she shares his judicial philosophy. I think it's no secret that I don't share his judicial philosophy, so that doesn't bode well in my book.

Secondly, he said that he picked her because he knew "her philosophy would be the same in 20 years." That's a good thing? So she's a closed minded, stubborn, pig headed fool like you who will never learn from a mistake (of course, according to Bush, he never makes mistakes so there's nothing to learn from, right?), never grow, and mistakes her own beliefs as unchanging truths? Greeeaaaat. What a positive characteristic.

Besides, is that even true of someone who is currently as close to Bush as anyone but contributed money to Al Gore in 1988?

[Alex]

Well, having a conservative judicial philosophy does not necessarily equal having a conservative political philosophy. Though I'm sure Bush believes her to have both.

In my opinion judicial philosphy is not something that should change over 20 years if it was well considered in the first place. It is not something that should be susceptible to the political vagaries of day-to-day life. Really the only reason to change your judicial philosphy is because you don't like the results achieved through its application and, in my opinion, a results oriented judiciary is a very bad thing and much of what has been wrong in the Supreme Court over the last 50 years (as much as I agree with most of their major political rulings, I think they were frequently decisions that more appropriately belonged in the legislative rather than judicial sphere).

But I still don't like this nomination.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Well, having a conservative judicial philosophy does not necessarily equal having a conservative political philosophy. Though I'm sure Bush believes her to have both.

Oh, I know. I'm specifically worried about her sharing Bush's judicial philosophy, which involves so-called "originalism".

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Oh, I know. I'm specifically worried about her sharing Bush's judicial philosophy, which involves so-called "originalism".

What is your judicial philosophy, GD?

I am most certainly an "originalist". Many say that the founders could not have forseen all the technology and issues of modern day America, but I say that's crap. (Hopefully they wob't see the new right that the mayor of SF has just announced, which is WiFi - a right???? But that's a different story.) To suggest that the founders were that short sighted denies their brilliance.

They did forsee changes, which is exactly why they set up a limited federal government with every power not specifically given to the federal government to be left to the states. Let the states handle the micromanagement of law and the unforseen. I am not blind - we are so far from that now that we will never be back to it, but we need not erode it any farther.

[sleepyjeff]

He's just trying to placate those of us on the right who are less then thrilled GD.......I wouldn't worry too much.

[innerSpaceman]

On the contrary, scaeagles ... something must be done to restore that balance. It's over. Saying that we should not erode something that is competely gone is misguided. Right now, the federal government has 100% power over us all, and the judicial system, often the Supreme Court, is the only remaining bulwark against tyranny. It cannot simply operate as if it's 1781 with its head in the sand.

If we have gone beyond the Constitution in one way, we must not be saddled with its limits in other ways.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

On the contrary, scaeagles ... something must be done to restore that balance. It's over. Saying that we should not erode something that is competely gone is misguided. Right now, the federal government has 100% power over us all, and the judicial system, often the Supreme Court, is the only remaining bulwark against tyranny. It cannot simply operate as if it's 1781 with its head in the sand.

If we have gone beyond the Constitution in one way, we must not be saddled with its limits in other ways.

I often wonder if I am a pessimist or a realist.....I would love for states rights to be restored to what it was meant to be. I just don't see it ever happening.

The federal government does hold all the cards. How does one take them back? I don't see that happening through any appointment to any court. Who the hell cares, in the grand and important scheme of things, if the phrase "under God" is in the pledge or not? Why is such minutia (sp?) taking up the important time of the highest courts in the land?

States rights IS the Constitution. When I see the SC making rulings that turn interstate commerce into something completely different than what the words mean - without even having to worry about original intent - I lose heart and figure the battle is over. I might have some hope, except the justice I regard most highly bought into that crap recently. Scalia, Scalia, Scalia - someone growing marijuana in their own home for private use, whether one agrees with doing it or not, has nothing to do with interstate commerce, and you know that. The SC is strengthening the feds more often than not.

When the SC rules that government can seize property from one private individual and give it to another, I lose heart.

When justices believe that looking to foreign law is acceptable to justify their positions and make rulings on our Constitution, I lose heart. As Roberts so absolutely brilliantly put it, it's like surveying a crowd for your friends. Some are out there, and you are certain to find them if you look long enough.

I could go on and on with so many things that make me lose heart. Sigh.

[Nephythys]

SCOTUS is not meant for quotas

[Ghoulish Delight]

The wording of the Constitution was selected very carefully. Excrutiatiningly carefully. So it's no acciden that it's so vague in many respects. I believe that vagueness was left in to allow the country to evolve its interpretation as the social consciousness evolved. Certainly there is enough other documentation to show that the framers had more specific views than ever made it into the wording. So why else would they leave that out? Would they really leave it vague and then demand that everything must follow strictly to such a vague document?

Here is a "proof" of my philosophy by induction (i.e., proving the opposite is not true). Let's assume that it's right to strictly follow the original document to the letter based on the specific goals of 1781. If that's the case, then all MEN were created equal. Woman should not be allowed the vote, blacks should not be counted as people, landowners should be offered more protection than other citizens.

Yes, it's a hyperbolic example, however, it only takes a single contradiction to disprove the premise. It is not a perfect document if taken as strict doctrine. The specifics aren't what are important. It's the spirit. The spirit of freedom, the spirit of equality. I believe the framers purposely left out the specifics, knowing that the extent of freedom that the people of their time would accept was NOT perfect freedom. It has allowed the scope of freedom and protection to expand with the public conscience. Strict constructionism equals stagnation.