Your concern about the conservativsm of the nominations for the Supreme Court are beside the point, it seems to me. We have our own Supreme Court, here in Canada, who regularly makes new law in the face of the 'original intent'. Same sex marriage is only one example. Further, they reviewed the 'Clarity Act', and brought into the penumbra the idea that secession could be achieved without introducing and winning a Constituional Amendment.
Justice isn't such an individual whim in the US, but the fear of the 'conservative' legal ideology is unjustified, because conservatives merely means to interpret law by 'strict construction' of the words of the law, supplemented by the way in which the law has been interpreted previously, and the intent of the law when it was written.
There isn't any 'conservative agenda' -- certainly not anything equivalent to the 'liberal agendy' to legalize homosexual marriage.
What about the "conservative agenda" in the United States to enshrine a second-class citizenry into the constutituion by amending it to ban gays from ever getting married? What about the "conservative agenda" in the United States to strip women of our reproductive rights? What about the "conservative agenda" in the United States to end separation of church and state and encourage all children - Christian, Jewish, Muslim, whatever - to either participate in school-sanctioned Christian prayer ceremonies or sit out like some pariah?
If you really think that conservatism in judges equals strict intepreation of the law, and liberalism equals departure from the law, then think about the interpretation of the law that says that all men are created equal. Your ideal conservative judges would still take that to mean only men, and for that matter, only white men. The ban on slavery, women's rights to vote, civil rights... none of that would even exist.
"to ban gays from ever getting married"
neither can children, or siblings. So many second class citizens, so little time to rant
"to strip women of our reproductive rights"
WTF? Women can reproduce whenever they want as much as they want. The only rights infringed upon are the rights of unborn babies to live. Stupid babies, thinking that their lives are more important than some women who "just aren't quite ready" for the responsibility.
Nothing will do more damage to the Democrats' midterm chances than 12 months of obstruction. Mr. Bush needs to nominate a solid conservative younger than 55 years old. They have earned the nomination of right wing Ginsberg through their control of every branch of government. Clearly Americans embrace conservative values and their court composition should reflect that. Why do Republicans have to nominate moderates while the Democrats nominate extremists like Ginsberg?
Posted at 2005-10-27 08:59:14 [PermaLink]Robert "the Amish Outlaw" Bork too right wing? Read his books - his outlook on the law very similar to Clarence Thomas, and Scalia to a lesser extent. I believe, Damian, that Ted Kennedy's slander in the senate lead to your conclusion.
I would suggest reading "the seduction of the law" or "slouching towards Gomorrah" as introductions to Bork's legal brilliance.
Cheers!
Segacs has expressed some valid points, but to me judicial rulings and interpretations are a culture's ongoing narrative, its autobiography that is constantly re-worked and re-edited and updated in order to reflect and accommodate changing conditions.
Medical technology, as pertains to human reproduction, has progressed to the point where the youngest surviving "preemies" are about the same age as the oldest aborted fetus'.
So we're reaching the threshold where abortion slowly morphs into murder.
As for Miers? She doesn't inspire much confidence, she's never even been a judge and she comes across as a legal feather-weight.
I ran the "Bork" idea past David Warren today, and he reminded me that, alas, Bork had just "shoved a dwarf up Bush's nose" by very vocally opposing Miers. So there goes that idea.
Posted at 2005-10-27 13:31:25 [PermaLink]"They have earned the nomination of right wing Ginsberg through their control of every branch of government."
Earned the right???
Excuse me, but since when does a party get the right to strip its opponents of their rights, just by getting elected? The Supreme Court is the court for all Americans, not only for Republicans.
The problem in the first place, I think, is the political appointment process whereby each party think it's their job to nominate someone who matches their politics, as opposed to someone who is a good judge.
I don't really know what the solution is, to be honest. The episode of the West Wing where two judges are confirmed - one liberal and one conservative - is as close to it as I think I've ever seen an idea come. But if you ask me, I think politicians ought to stay out of it completely. There must be a better way.
As for my proven power of prognostication in this affair, just make your cheques out to "Cash": that's my maiden name!
Posted at 2005-10-27 15:43:15 [PermaLink]"Excuse me, but since when does a party get the right to strip its opponents of their rights, just by getting elected?"
That's the way it works here; do you have a different system down there?