Megan McArdle Article: Replacing a Justice Shouldn't Be So Excruciating

[martybegan]

An article that closely matches my views on the Court, and where we seem to be going when it comes to getting what we want politically.

Replacing a Justice Shouldn't Be So Excruciating

Her intro:

Longtime readers will easily guess that I generally prefer the jurisprudence of Antonin Scalia to that of, say, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and that I would prefer the next Supreme Court justice be more like him than like her. But I would also prefer to live in a country where the fate of the republic did not turn quite so sharply on which of nine unelected lawyers happens to die in a given year.

The crux of the article:

Running more and more issues through the appellate courts, rather than struggling through the legislative process, has two terrible effects. First, it federalizes more and more issues, in an era when values and ideologies tend to be sharply partisan and geographically divided. If you were a pro-lifer in Alabama, you probably wouldn't get on a bus to Albany to protest New Yorkers' more liberal abortion laws. But when federal courts decided that abortion law would be substantially the same everywhere in the country, proponents of abortion rights and opponents of abortion became locked in a battle over the court that sets the rules. (And also still squabble at state and local levels, of course.)

The second problem is that by putting any issue beyond legislative debate, deeming it a decision for judges alone, you leave a large number of Americans who are passionate on certain issues feeling like they have no democratic recourse. It's a recipe for extreme reactions, like voting for Donald Trump or worse.

 

[easyt65]

The Statue, 'Lady Justice', represents how Justice is supposed to be blind, how it (suppose to) sees everyone in the same way, and the only thing that matters is THE LAW.

It's not that simple anymore.

We now have Presidents who openly declare how he will or will not adhere to his oath of office, of enforcing all of our laws. We have politicians who turn their backs on THE LAW, refusing to adhere to the same laws they pass for the citizens of this country, allow cities to violate federal law by providing sanctuary cities for violent illegal criminals.

Partisanship, personal beliefs, people's own agendas have been allowed to trample upon, override the Rule of Law. And to ensure personal / political agendas are protected and furthered politicians now seek to nominate NOT the non-partisan who looks to the Law for guidance and direction but looks to nominate like-minded partisans ,to stack the deck in their favor.

 

[BluesLegend]

FACT: Liberal justices are trying to make law, twist, distort, and undermine the Constitution hence we need to stop Obama from appointing another liberal justice to the court. End of story.

 

[martybegan]

The Statue, 'Lady Justice', represents how Justice is supposed to be blind, how it (suppose to) sees everyone in the same way, and the only thing that matters is THE LAW.

It's not that simple anymore.

We now have Presidents who openly declare how he will or will not adhere to his oath of office, of enforcing all of our laws. We have politicians who turn their backs on THE LAW, refusing to adhere to the same laws they pass for the citizens of this country, allow cities to violate federal law by providing sanctuary cities for violent illegal criminals.

Partisanship, personal beliefs, people's own agendas have been allowed to trample upon, override the Rule of Law. And to ensure personal / political agendas are protected and furthered politicians now seek to nominate NOT the non-partisan who looks to the Law for guidance and direction but looks to nominate like-minded partisans ,to stack the deck in their favor.

It wouldn't be an issue if Federalism still applied, or even the proper separation of powers, but more and more power is being accumulated by the Federal Government, and more and more of that power is being concentrated in the Executive and Judicial branches.

 

[RDD_1210]

FACT: Liberal justices are trying to make law, twist, distort, and undermine the Constitution hence we need to stop Obama from appointing another liberal justice to the court. End of story.

LOL, it's truly funny that you believe this nonsense.

Please go outside and get some fresh air.

 

[BluesLegend]

FACT: Liberal justices are trying to make law, twist, distort, and undermine the Constitution hence we need to stop Obama from appointing another liberal justice to the court. End of story.

LOL, it's truly funny that you believe this nonsense.

Please go outside and get some fresh air.

Did you have excess stupidity that you needed to vent?

 

[Steven_R]

Actually, it should be this hard to replace a justice or for government to do anything else. Checks and Balances doesn't mean rubberstamp and gridlock is a feature, not a flaw.

 

[martybegan]

Actually, it should be this hard to replace a justice or for government to do anything else. Checks and Balances doesn't mean rubberstamp and gridlock is a feature, not a flaw.

That's our current situation, but if the system is used properly, it shouldn't be needed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The issue is this: is Scalia's doctrine of textual criticism correct in interpreting the Constitution. Should our justices rule as they think the founders would have ruled?

 

[RDD_1210]

FACT: Liberal justices are trying to make law, twist, distort, and undermine the Constitution hence we need to stop Obama from appointing another liberal justice to the court. End of story.

LOL, it's truly funny that you believe this nonsense.

Please go outside and get some fresh air.

Did you have excess stupidity that you needed to vent?

Nope, you covered that enough for the both of us.

I just read your post again, LOL. Thanks for the chuckle low-brow.

 

[martybegan]

The issue is this: is Scalia's doctrine of textual criticism correct in interpreting the Constitution. Should our justices rule as they think the founders would have ruled?

To me its less about ruling as the founders would have ruled, its about not thinking you can amend the document without amending it. Interpretation does not mean creating whole new rights out of thin air, or extrapolating existing rights to cover other things "because we feel like it"

Saying 1st amendment protections extend to radio and television is interpretation, saying that somehow the constitution makes abortion and gay marriage a protected right is not interpretation, it is making stuff up.

 

[BluesLegend]

FACT: Liberal justices are trying to make law, twist, distort, and undermine the Constitution hence we need to stop Obama from appointing another liberal justice to the court. End of story.

LOL, it's truly funny that you believe this nonsense.

Please go outside and get some fresh air.

Did you have excess stupidity that you needed to vent?

Nope, you covered that enough for the both of us.

I just read your post again, LOL. Thanks for the chuckle low-brow.

Hopefully it will carry you through the tough times ahead when the left takes another shellacking in the 2016 elections.

 

[RDD_1210]

FACT: Liberal justices are trying to make law, twist, distort, and undermine the Constitution hence we need to stop Obama from appointing another liberal justice to the court. End of story.

LOL, it's truly funny that you believe this nonsense.

Please go outside and get some fresh air.

Did you have excess stupidity that you needed to vent?

Nope, you covered that enough for the both of us.

I just read your post again, LOL. Thanks for the chuckle low-brow.

Hopefully it will carry you through the tough times ahead when the left takes another shellacking in the 2016 elections.

Do you truly believe that if what you say comes true and the republicans win big that everything in this country will change for the better?

 

[Correll]

The issue is this: is Scalia's doctrine of textual criticism correct in interpreting the Constitution. Should our justices rule as they think the founders would have ruled?

Do you think Latino women are wiser than white men?

Obama's last supreme court justice does.

 

[BluesLegend]

FACT: Liberal justices are trying to make law, twist, distort, and undermine the Constitution hence we need to stop Obama from appointing another liberal justice to the court. End of story.

LOL, it's truly funny that you believe this nonsense.

Please go outside and get some fresh air.

Did you have excess stupidity that you needed to vent?

Nope, you covered that enough for the both of us.

I just read your post again, LOL. Thanks for the chuckle low-brow.

Hopefully it will carry you through the tough times ahead when the left takes another shellacking in the 2016 elections.

Do you truly believe that if what you say comes true and the republicans win big that everything in this country will change for the better?

Our mission is to destroy the left, we kicked them out of the House and Senate, threw them to the ground and kicked dirt in their faces while laughing. Next up the White House and SCOTUS.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The issue is this: is Scalia's doctrine of textual criticism correct in interpreting the Constitution. Should our justices rule as they think the founders would have ruled?

Do you think Latino women are wiser than white men? Obama's last supreme court justice does.

Not the person I would have chosen. I would not have chosen Scalia, either.

 

[JakeStarkey]

LOL, it's truly funny that you believe this nonsense.

Please go outside and get some fresh air.

Did you have excess stupidity that you needed to vent?

Nope, you covered that enough for the both of us.

I just read your post again, LOL. Thanks for the chuckle low-brow.

Hopefully it will carry you through the tough times ahead when the left takes another shellacking in the 2016 elections.

Do you truly believe that if what you say comes true and the republicans win big that everything in this country will change for the better?

Our mission is to destroy the left, we kicked them out of the House and Senate, threw them to the ground and kicked dirt in their faces while laughing. Next up the White House and SCOTUS.

Our GOP is going to be lucky to get the WH and may lose the Senate.

 

[Correll]

The issue is this: is Scalia's doctrine of textual criticism correct in interpreting the Constitution. Should our justices rule as they think the founders would have ruled?

Do you think Latino women are wiser than white men? Obama's last supreme court justice does.

Not the person I would have chosen. I would not have chosen Scalia, either.

You are in no danger of Obama picking a Scalia.

YOu can be sure he will pick another Sotomayor.

Which will be very bad for America and Americans.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The issue is this: is Scalia's doctrine of textual criticism correct in interpreting the Constitution. Should our justices rule as they think the founders would have ruled?

Do you think Latino women are wiser than white men? Obama's last supreme court justice does.

Not the person I would have chosen. I would not have chosen Scalia, either.

You are in no danger of Obama picking a Scalia.

YOu can be sure he will pick another Sotomayor.

Which will be very bad for America and Americans.

I can be sure that he will not pick anyone of the sort if he wants it ratified by the end of the year. The Senate will be put in a tough position if he nominates Kelly or Srinivasan. The Senate ratified them 97-0 and 98-0 in the last two or three years.

If they are ratified, the President gets a victory.

If they are refused, the Dems go on the war cry of "obstructionism".

 

[Correll]

The issue is this: is Scalia's doctrine of textual criticism correct in interpreting the Constitution. Should our justices rule as they think the founders would have ruled?

Do you think Latino women are wiser than white men? Obama's last supreme court justice does.

Not the person I would have chosen. I would not have chosen Scalia, either.

You are in no danger of Obama picking a Scalia.

YOu can be sure he will pick another Sotomayor.

Which will be very bad for America and Americans.

I can be sure that he will not pick anyone of the sort if he wants it ratified by the end of the year. The Senate will be put in a tough position if he nominates Kelly or Srinivasan. The Senate ratified them 97-0 and 98-0 in the last two or three years.

If they are ratified, the President gets a victory.

If they are refused, the Dems go on the war cry of "obstructionism".

Every single dem appointee voted in support of Disparate Impact Theory and thus Blatant Anti-white Discrimination (see new haven firefighter case).

He can't avoid that type of thinking unless he completely betrays everything he stands for.

And nominates someone the Republicans want.