Scylla: Thanks. I had a problem with the word, not with who typed it, and am glad to see that it was used quite hyperbolically.
Okay. So that means that nobody needs to obey any court order, anytime, anywhere, since none of them are “a law”? This gets to the heart of the side debate that’s been going on in these threads – what is “law”? And I respectfully submit, December, that you don’t seem to have a clue how the term is used in jurisprudence.
If it’s your contention that Mr. Estrada’s appointment should be confirmed because a president you support nominated him and because he’s a nice guy, I’ll be happy to agree with your secondary premise – but I expect my judges to be operating within the framework of what the term “law” has entailed since – when was it that Blackstone was written, anyway? 1400s? –
so with all due respect I must disagree with that being sufficient cause to confirm him. What little I’ve seen in his testimony makes me like him as a prospective candidate – assuming he’s telling the truth. But the point that he claims never to have studied Roe v. Wade tends to belie the value of his testimony, as Minty pointed out. It would be like having someone nominated as Chief Forecaster for the Census Bureau who claims to have no familiarity with morbidity tables, yet is “an obviously well qualified candidate” according to his partisan supporters.
So, Izzy, do YOU curse those stupid activist judges every time a citizen of a state is prevented from suing that state in federal court for violating federal law? Do you bitch about desegregation? Whine about having a constitutional right to have children and direct their upbringing? Bemoan the fact that the government can’t just castrate your retarded or mentally ill nephew?
'Cause ain’t none of those rights in the text of the Constitution, amigo. If you’re going to whine about Roe, then you damn well better whine about all the rest of those or accept the fact that you just like some kinds of judicial activism better than others.
This, in a nutshell, is what I detest about conservative judicial politics–the blind insistence that they’re not doing what they’re doing. Hypocrisy of the first order.
No problem. Next time I’ll be more careful with my words. Instead of just casually typing enemy I’ll remember to say “lying evil hypocritical Democrat worm-scum,” to avoid the confusion.
–When are we expecting to see a vacancy on the SCOTUS, and who will it be?
–Can someone who through law school in the last thirty years really claim not to have given much thought to Roe v. Wade from a legal standpoint? It just feels like it would if I said I got through med school but never gave much thought to coronary artery disease.
Please try again. This mix of irrelevancy and ad hominem is incomprehensible.
It’s deceptive or lazy to misquote Estrada, especially when the actual quote is on this very page (4:02 pm). And, it’s ironic that your misquote is used to justify an accusation of lying.
Both of which are binding constitutional law and should be followed as such by any judge called upon to apply those cases. (Dred Scott, of course, has been overturned precisely as constitutional law should be overturned–by constitutional amendment.)
No.
Quite so. The Constitution frequently “takes an issue away from Congress” and the states. Check out the document you profess to honor sometime. You’ll note that a heck of a lot of what it does is prevent the government from fucking with people.
DoctorJ - From what I hear, both Rehnquist and O’Connor are considering retiring before the end of Bush’s term. Supposedly, now that the Repubs control the Senate, that likelihood is greater, as the confirmation process would be easier. (Though clearly not smooth-sailing…as Estrada has shown.)
I’ll take your word for it that they’re not in the constitution.
And if so, they should not have been legislated from the bench. If the public wanted these rights - and in many cases they do - their elected representatives could and will pass laws that grant them. I disagree with judges creating laws, no matter how good the laws are. That is not their proper role.
BTW, I don’t think there’s anything inherently liberal about favoring judicial activism, or conservative about opposing it. It just happens that liberal courts (beginning with Warren, AFAIK) have managed to enact a lot of liberal agenda by acting in a activist manner. So the liberals like the idea and conservatives oppose it. Of course, as a person of the highest principles myself, my opposition is totally unconnected to liberal/conservative battles - I’m talking about everyone else.
Aimless, you may notice that the Constitution provides for many things other than common defense and regulation of interstate commerce. You may wish to read it sometime. In the case of abortion, I suggest you pay particular attention to the 14th Amendment and its guarantee of due process.
During Bush’s first two years, the Senate has dramatically changed its practice with respect to appellate judges. This article has some graphs that knock your eyes out. I don’t know how to recreate them here, so please follow the link and scroll about 2/3 of the way down. Actually, the entire article is worth reading.
The essence of the graphs is
[quote]
[ul][li]From Jimmy Carter through William Clinton, over 90 percent of circuit court nominees received a Judiciary Committee hearing during a President’s first Congress. (See Chart 1.)[]By contrast, only about one-third of President Bush’s circuit court nominees (37.9 percent) have received a committee hearing.[]With respect to receiving a Judiciary Committee vote, from Jimmy Carter through William Clinton, at least 86 percent of circuit court nominees received a Judiciary Committee vote. (See Chart 2.)[]By contrast only about one-third (34.5 percent) of President Bush’s nominees have received a vote in the Judiciary Committee. (See Chart 2.)[]And with respect to Senate floor votes, at least 86 percent of circuit court nominees from the Administrations of Jimmy Carter through William Clinton got a vote by the full Senate. (See Chart 3.) By contrast, only about one-fourth (27.6 percent) of President Bush’s circuit court nominees have received a vote by the full Senate. (See Chart 3.)[/ul][/li][/quote]
In short, recent past Senates voted on at least 86% of circuit court nominees from previous administrations first two years; the 2001-02 Senate only voted on only 28%. And, now the Democrats are doing the first filibuster in history at the appellate judge level, with the possibility of more filibusters to come.
This is a dramatic shift in confirmation procedure, and one that bodes ill for the country. The more the Senate f*cks around with these highly competent people, the less these people will be willing to provide public service. That means too many vacancies and fewer competent judges.
No, I assure you, I am named after a breath mint. But in a nutshell:
“Destroying a fetus,” as you put it, is a right because “due process” is a guarantee not only of a fair hearing, but of fair laws. Just as you cannot be convicted without having an opportunity to defend yourself before a jury of your peers, you cannot be convicted period of certain things. For instance, you can’t go to jail for smiling at a pretty girl. (Izzy, of course, would disagree on that point, but he is a non-hypocritical lunatic who can safely be disregarded and/or castrated. )
The things that you cannot be prevented from doing are the things that are fundamental to a well-ordered system of liberty. (At least, that’s how I recall the legal formulation at the moment. Don’t quote me.) Among those items is reproduction. The government has no legal authority to tell you whether you can bear children. (Of necessity, this also protects your right to screw yourself silly.) Nor can nor the government tell you that you must have children. It just ain’t any of their damn business.
Now that we’ve established you have a right to determine whether and when to reproduce, we turn to the subject of abortion. The government can’t make you reproduce, but the government also can’t allow you to step on anybody else’s rights. Is there anybody else who has rights when it comes to pregnancy? Tough call, but they had to make some sort of decision there. Turns out they decided nobody else existed who had any rights in that pregnancy. Hence, abort away.
Think that about covers it. See the Findlaw annotations for further info.
Gah! I am prevented from replying due to the demands of an evil woman… though I can’t guarantee that I won’t return in stealth later this evening ( my time )…
" Shall Return!" Little Brittish Car Man
( This is my last “Seriously” P.S. - I do enjoy the discourse, and wish to continue, and I love talking snotty, plus, at this rate, I ain’t a n00b anymore
