Same here. I don’t want (or trust) anyone who goes in with a personal “vision” or agenda, who then twists the words of the law to fit. I want someone who is neutral and can stay that way. I don’t know if Alito will be good or bad, but he’s in. I want to see what he does.
You picked a very appropriate username, because my first reaction upon reading most of your postings is “What the…!!!” 
Of course reasonable people may differ. But they differ in their view of what the role of the judiciary should be. They do not differ in concluding that the most objective method of analysis is closer to what I have described.
It’s not self-evident that judges should limit their participation in this way, I agree. I contend it’s WISEST, and most consistent with our notions of self-governance, but I agree reasonable people may disagree on this point.
However, if you believe that the proper judicial role is more involved than simply interpreting text, you still cannot credibly claim that the result you reach is not results-driven. In contrast, my approach is NOT results driven. For this reason, I claim it is more principled – that is, more objectively applied regardless of the result reached
You see the difference?
Unless you can state that there is indeed a single, objectively determineable, inarguable meaning for the words of a law or part of the Constitution, then you have no claim to objectivity or to not being result-driven. When the hell are you ever going to address that? All you’ve done is change the terminology for exactly the same thing, while kidding yourself that you’re not.
Are you suggesting that the only rights people have are those written down in the Constitution?
My problem with Alito is that I think he is an ENEMY of women, of minorities and of the disabled. His membership in CAP, his bragging about his opposition to civil rights as a Reagan attorney, his judicial record on civil rights cases … the evidence is all on the “enemy” side. In Alito’s case, all this “strict constructionism” claptrap is just an argument of convenience for an argument that cannot be publicly advanced at present (i.e., for sexism and racism).
The reason that Alito’s sexism and racism matters is that it makes America less competitive and less wealthy. Enterprise, intelligence, skill and talent come in all kinds of boxes – male, female, white, yellow, brown, black. We as a society are richer when we are able to get the enterprise, intelligence, etc. from whatever kinds of box it comes in. Alito seems to value only white, male boxes. The rest he will happily leave unopened on all of our behalves.
He’s gonna be a problem, not a solution, for America so long as he sits on the bench.
I meant to credit Sevastopopl for this argument.
Better him than that Sevatopol guy. :smack:
Bricker, what’s your opinion on Bush and FISA? FISA’s the law of the land and Bush unambigously violated that law. He claims it was okay to violate that law because he was following a higher duty to protect the nation. Do you think the President should be held accountable for violating FISA? And if you do think he should be held accountable, what specifically should be done about this situation? And if you don’t think he should be held accountable, why not and how do you reconcile this with your principle that the law should be followed simply and without interpretation?
What representations specifically are you referring to?
The neutrality acts had loopholes which were exploited, and lend-lease was passed by Congress. I don’t believe it can be fairly called illegal.
All right, you consider it acceptable for the president to decieve Congress and the American people, to “trump up excuses” for a war, to force us into a war, assuming s/he thinks the war is just. You seem to be saying it is moral for a single man to subvert the democratic process with deception–to deceive Congress to get the result you desire–if you believe your cause is just. It sounds odd coming from our champion of process. If the democratic process can be subverted for “good cause”, why can’t law and the constitution also be ignored if you think that will result in a moral outcome? Would it be moral for a lawyer to lie about precedent in order to get a “right” outcome in a case?
Yes I do and I appreciate the thought in your post. On this board many people are fond of using the phrase ‘fallacy of the excluded middle.’ I think it inelegant and don’t employ it.
But, but, but, I believe you have presented a dichotomy which may not be the best descriptor of what goes on in the legal theories we are considering.
Lets first allow that a simple text driven approach can only be imperfectly applied, as is the nature of all things in human enterprise. Further, there must be some leakage into your model from the normative world, taking canons of interpretation for example; absurdity; construing a beneficial clause; and so on. Alllowing those, is then your model adequate to the judicial task?
I don’t think it is, at least at appellate/higher court level. The choices a court at that level faces are not and cannot be generally made by reference to the strict text. For example, commonly the choice is whether to construe a provision broadly or narrowly. How does a strict construction assist with that choice? Not in any obvious way. Rather it is a matter of considering the history of court decisions on like or analogous matters, or indeed making a fresh decision of frank policy. That’s what courts do and the benefit to that process from strict construction is not plain.
From the theorectical to the specific: I recall that Roe is a legally vulnerable decision, but overturning a supreme court decision? An integrated part of US common law? I’d say unlikely.
I’ve always believed that Germany declared war on the US because of some pact it had w/Japan—is that in error?
As to the US violating the principles of neutrality, I suppose we did. What else is there to say?
I’m not conversant with a specific law broken by the US but I would be pleased to know more about it.
On review, I suppose I framed my questions in a challenging way but that wasn’t my intent. I thought you were proposing a reason for Germany declaring war that differed from what I’ve always believed.
Good grace to you, sir!
Actually, I don’t consider it “acceptable.” I find his actions understandable, though, because he believed, in good faith, in what he was told. His reliance on flawed intelligence was ultimately in error.
And I don’t consider FDR’s behavior acceptable, either. I was merely pointing out that an action which history broadly judges as benign was as fraught with ambiguity as Bush’s action is.
In either case, the process bothers me; I am not upset about the result. That should not be mistaken as approval of the process. I have many times criticized the Bush administration’s incompetence in evaluating intelligence data that led them to make the errors they did. What I’ve said in this thread is that, even though that issue is troubling, I believe that the correct result was reached.
You seem to be supporting analysis by ad logicam.
Yes, I believe Germany was not required to declare war on the USA after Pearl Harbor, or so I’ve always been told. The prevailing theory is that he thought he could:
– Distract USA enough to help Japan: Germany could take it since it was the Greatest Military Power Ever.
– By showing support for Japan (and carrying the military burden,) entice Japan to reopen the Mongolian/Siberian front.
Yes.
In point of fact, after Pearl Harbor, war with Germany was inevitable because Americans wanted it. Many Americans believed Germany was “really” responsible for PH; racist assumptions made many people believe that Japan’s war machine could only be as successful as it was if it was being directed by Europeans (i.e. Germany). The US government knew Germany had nothing to do with PH, but did not correct the misperception.
According to my understanding, many, if not most, Americans wanted nothing to do with WWII. Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, most Americans wanted revenge on Japan but still did not want involvement with the European conflict and would NOT have unilateraly favored war with Germany. Germany declared war on the USA two days after Pearl Harbor, IIRC; the USA had no choice but to declare war on Germany. At about the same time, Italy declared war on the USA, leaving the USA no choice but to declare war on Italy.
I’ve never heard that many Americans thought Germany was “really” responsible for Pearl Harbor, or at least not until reading this post. I’ve also never heard that many people believed Japan’s war effort was being directed by Europeans. I’d like more information on that.
Not true. Polls at the time (Fall-Winter of '41) showed that most Americans were willing to go to war with Germany in order to stop their agression. Heck, most Americans were willing to go to war with Japan before Pearl Harbor occured.
You seem to find it more than understandable; you said, “Let me offer a hypo that’s closer to the facts: if Germany had not declared war on the US, would have been OK if FDR trumped up a reason to declare war on them? YES. Yes, it would.” You say it’s OK and “YES”, which is a lot more that “gee, I can understand that.” If you really do not believe that “trumping up” reasons to get us into a war is acceptable, why did you just emphatically say it was OK?