As I’ve said many times before, many “righties” want conservative judicial activists on the court, even though they say (or even think) that they want what they call “strict constructionists”. I’d put Bush in that camp. They don’t realize that a strict reading of the constitution will often return rulings that are contrary to their social conservative agenda. There are, however, some reasoned voices on the right who do know what they’re talking about and do want the nominee to have a clear judicial philosophy along the lines of Scalia (someone who takes a textualist approach to determing original intent).
So, I don’t understand your point. How does “having a judicial philosophy” = “judicial activism”? It all depends on exactly what the philosophy is. The biggest fear seems to be that she will have to develop her philosophy on the job, and that there’s no guarantee what the sepcifics of that philosophy will be. Seems like a valid concern to me.
Of course. Hypocrisy rears its ugly head once again.
Don’t take meanings at their surface only. It isn’t really a *judicial * philosophy that Bork and other righties think she should have and apply, but a political one, as you’ve just hinted at. In short, for the folks we hear using it, “conservative judicial philosophy” is code - they (except perhaps Dobson) don’t know for sure that she’d vote to reverse Roe, on whatever basis can be found. That’s Issue Number One - methods of interpretation are really relevant to them only in regard to their effectiveness at getting rid of abortion.
It’s worse than that-- hypocracy and ingnorance all rolled into one.
That’s all find and good, except the post that triggered your original response in this little side topic was about Bork. I don’t think Bork fits into the ignorant and hypocritic camp. So, I still don’t understand what you were getting at in the context of RTF’s post about Bork. That’s all I was getting at-- it’s not a big deal.
He suggest that whats kind the Super-Tighty Rightys all in a lather is not Ms. Meier’s position, they are pretty sure GeeDub ain’t gonna send down some moderate. They can read the “code” and know what he’s saying…“Gooble gabble, one of us!”…
What pisses them off is the idea that “code” is necessary: they think they should be able to ram a radical righty down the liberal’s throats and gloat while they do it. This is thier payoff and they want it, they want it bad, and they want it NOW!
Actually, it’s both, depending on whom you’re talking about. But the folks like Bork, Will and Krauthammer have been making the 2nd argument. Was there any question about that?
They’re just not protesting outside the WH chanting:
What do we want? Another Scalia.
When do we want it? NOW!!
Actually, luc, they have got it wrong over on Kos, at least for the folks like Will. They don’t trust Bush and the don’t accept the “code words” (assuming that even exist):
Eye of the beholder, my good man, eye of the beholder - except when it’s used by someone who wants to overturn much of society itself, for whom it becomes unreasonable to think that the courts should not be one of the instruments of that radicalism. Why else would he be upset that Miers doesn’t have a clear agenda?
He’s not upset over her lack of agenda, he’s upset over her lack of philosophy. Why else would he be upset, you ask? Well, it would seem that to find that answer one need only look at the reason he’s given, which is that a lack of philosophy means no one knows what process she will use to reach her rulings. Bork doesn’t want to know what her rulings will be, just how she’s going to go about reaching them. Again, that seems like an extremely reasonable concern to have about her.
But let’s not get into the rathole of a debate about judicial activism. Few, if any, judges are self-describe judicial activists. So, if as you say, it’s in the eye of the beholder, then we’ll just agree to disagree. I don’t see it. I’m going to leave it at that.
Now *that * is some fancy parsing. What is a philosophy if it doesn’t entail an agenda?
I don’t think that’s a reasonable reading of the man, not that his opinions matter to me anyway.
If you mean let’s get *out * of it, I’m with you. But yes, I’m sure few if any judges would ever admit it, because it just wouldn’t occur to them that they might be anything other than neutral arbiters. One’s prejudices are clear to almost anyone but oneself - if you become aware of it, it either ceases to be a prejudice or it can be compartmentalized.
Why, btw, are there still so many people who think Bork should have been on the Court?
I can only speak for myself: because he had the requisite qualifications. Had he been a more regular looking human being with a far less prickly manner, he probbaly would’ve been confirmed. Also, had he been able to take advantage of what we now know about the confirmation process (evade, evade, evade), that would’ve helped.
Have you really bought into that spin, that the reasons the Dems went against him were superficial and partisan and spiteful? I asked that rhetorical question because I had thought he had made it clear enough in subsequent years that he really is a dangerous radical with regard only for his own vision and not for history and precedent, as the Dems at the time of his hearings already understood.
Not enough, because he had an extensive written record already. The strategy of getting holders of a desired agenda through the hearings (even if they stray from it later) first requires a nominee not to have any record that can be considered independently of their own (lack of) public statements.
