Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Bonnie, May 19, 2006.
This is exactly how the liberal socialist elites plan to to expedite their policies...by sneaking through the back door using just a few "independent" judges who think they have no accountability to us, the voters.
We need more Congressmen like Tom DeLay who are willing to impeach justices on the Supreme Court....forget O'Connor as she's already history....let's start with the Court Communist,
Ruth Bader Ginsberg!
What a smart man Hamilton was huh?
I hate this dishonest form of argument. O'Connor meant what she meant. For some commentator to come along and interpret her words to mean something else is just intellectual dishonesty.
Anyway the whole argument about judicial independence and so-called judicial activism is built on sand. The very point about the separation of powers is that it underpins the concept of a liberal democracy. People who rant about judicial activism usually are moaning about a decision they don't like. If an executive controls a judiciary then there is no liberal democracy. If you want a judiciary under the control of politicians then fine, go for it. You won't like it though.
But the Judiciary usurping democratically elected representatives makes you feel all warm and fuzzy?
As for your comment that O'Connor "meant what she meant", whether you agree with it or not, the author's interpetation is logical. Are you somehow more qualified to interpret what O'Connor meant than the author?
It isn't the place of Congress or the Executive to construe the Constitution. Doing that would destroy the Constitutional protections against tyranny of the majority. The executive administers, the legislature passes laws, the Courts make sure those laws comply with the Constitution.
And wondering when Sandra Day O'Connor became a "liberal jurist".... I suspect she'd be quite surprised to hear that.
And the thought of "impeaching" justices for their decisions..... *shiver*
I don't see it as usurping anyone. The touchstone for any judiciary is the law. The law is made by the legislature. The legislature is bound by the constitution as to what it can make law on. The judiciary is also bound by the constitution and also by its own precedents. If a legislature tries to make a law that is out of whack with the constitution then it's the judiciary that has to rein them in and point to the constitution. That's just team play in my book, everyone doing their job.
On the author's interpretation question. My qualifications or lack of them are irrelevant. The author's logic is faulty. When someone writes what she really means my bullshit detector goes to red. Since the author is not interrrogating O'Connor about "what she really means" and I believe the mind-reading is not yet possible, it must be that the author is merely re-interpreting O'Connor's remarks in a way suited to the author. That's intellectually dishonest. O'Connor did not claim "independence from checks and balances, independence from the written law, and independence from virtually any form of accountability." A responsible journalist would have either put that to O'Connor and recorded a response or would find evidence which points to O'Connor wanting what is claimed.
If they were behaving as in the bolded sentence, we would have no disagreement. The problem is they are not. The most intellectually dishonest claim of the last 3 decades, is that the Courts are not making agenda-based decisions, and then backing into them via tortured Constitutional interpretations.
The writer may or may not be pushing an agenda, you do not know, but he did not pull a rabbit out of his hat. His points were logical, and buttressed by O'Connor's own voting record. Who's to say but you are being intellectually dishonest, and basing your opinions of the article on a pro-judicial activist agenda of your own?
Sorry, D, but the fact that your personal BS detector goes off is not a very compelling argument against the author or his opinions.
Personally, I think someone's BS detector should go off when someone who's trained to be an exterminator, like Tom Delay, thinks he knows more about the Constitution than Sandra Day O'Connor.
Another voice, lots of links, (mostly legal writings, but quite interesting):
Separate names with a comma.