Saturday, May 07, 2005

Stop the Insanity


There is a belief, largely prevelant amongst the chattering classes that judges come to the bench carved in ideological stone that is impervious to change.

This is, what we call in the law world, bullshit.

Judges are human beings, and they change - often times at the peril of those who supported their appointment. Not that anyone whose been drinking the present Lefty Kool Aid is going to believe me, but here goes:

When asked is he made any mistakes that he truly regretted as president, Eisenhower remarked "Yes, and they're both sitting on the Supreme Court." He was referring to none other then "Impeach" Earl Warren who defined 'judicialactivism' and Brennan, who served until the age of 150 when he died suddenly in 2054.

Jimmy Carter appointed Judge Shabazz to the bench in Madison. Shabazz is a relative of none other than Malcom X. He is generally regarded as a maverick - inasmuch as he follows the law. He's a politically active Democrat, but a judicial conservative. Probably not the touchy feely guy that Carter was hoping for.

Justice Kennedy? Oh, there's a rock of modern conservatism. Justice O'Connor? Yeah, she's in my corner on abortion - when the wind is blowing right - err, left.

Tell me, Mr. "I'm Just Concerned For The Future Of The American Judiciary", without Googling an answer, are Federal Sentencing Guidelines a Republican or a Democratic Issue when it comes to selecting Judges? That is, how should a candidates stand on this issue (which is so important that it gets 0 coverage in the media - 'cuz it's boring, y'know) effect your support for him if you were sitting in the Senate awaiting a vote for him?
If we shouldn't vote on Bush's selections, who should we vote on? Oh, that's right, the other side doesn't actually have to make suggestions, it only has to obstruct.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home