I am about to embark on a 7 day excursion to the eastern caribbean (the hiatus). It's apparently the doldrums of the blog season anyway, with people going on vacations and such, but as selfish as the thought may be, I'd like to see some of the previous discussions fleshed out (the filibuster). The biggest downside with having a new topic each day is that we leave a lot of good discussion on the table in order to pay attention to new ones. So if you have the inclination, skim through some older posts and post inflammatory and incendiery (but not derogatory) comments. I may also have the privelege of a super-secret guest blogger one or two days this week. I'm actually very excited about the possiblity but I don't want to get anyones hopes up, especially my own. Also, since the remnants of a Pacific hurricane seem to be headed toward my very expensive vacation, I may have a good bit of time to compose a lot of future blogs next week, so watch out!
I leave you with these parting, inflammatory thoughts: Lindsay Beyerstein, on her delightful philosphic blog that is 50% of the time over my head, suggests that a potential outcome of removing the threat of filibuster from appointments may cause "judicial activism" to explode like never before. Now, judges try to appear neutral, even when they're not. They try to be neutral as much as possible, especially if they're itching for a federal judgeship. But if the ruling party can install extremist judges (not to imply that Bush's judges are extreme, just that the possibility to do so exists), judges will try to pander to the party lines to be nominated. Earlier in their careers, judges will try to get the attention of the party elite by moving farther and farther from the center - from objectivity. "Judicial Activism" on both sides of the fence will go nuts as judges try to twist the constitution to their will in order to get appointed to higher and higher office.
Case in point - my Congressional district is solid red. No Democrat will get elected here in my lifetime (unless minorities start moving in enmasse - then the Repubs will flee north again like they did in the 60's in Atlanta). Therefore the Republican primary was the election, and the two main Repub candidates battled it out in extremism royale, competing to see who could call the other gay-friendly more, who could call the other abortion-friendly more, despite the fact that both were extreme homophobes who would stone their daughters if she tried to have an abortion even if she had been raped by Adolf Hitler.
So the question is, what do the Republicans have to gain by getting rid of the filibuster? I understand the appeal when Republicans are in power, but image if Hillary Clinton were President. Would they want her to have no opposition in choosing the judges of her choice? If this plan would increase judicial activism, maybe the Republicans are blowing a little smoke up our skirts. Maybe they don't hate the idea of judges creating law at all, as long as it's in their favor.
13 comments:
You're both a little right. Scott is right in that ending the filibuster NOW might cause judges to be more extreme later. However, that's only because the Dems decided to use the filibuster in such a nontraditional manner. Had they not started this whole mess by not doing their constitutional duty, then it wouldn't be a problem whose solution had other adverse effects.
And Mike is right. If you look at the history of "liberal" versus "conservative" judges on teh Supreme Court, the liberals are much more likely to suddenly discover a new interpretation of some phrase in the constitution which allows them to do what they want. The conservative ones, befitting their conservative philosophy, are much more likely to be strict constructionists who read the constitution as written. Whatever my opinion on abortion might be, there's certainly nothing anywhere in the constitution that says the federal government has any say in such an issue, but liberal activist judges managed to reinterpret things to make it their problem and thus we have Roe v Wade. Good may have come out of it, but it is absolutely NOT in the Supreme Courts' purview to be ruling on abortion.
No doubt the Republicans will just do like they did when DeLay came under indictment for K Streeting last fall and reverse the law they wrote to prevent someone from being under suspicion and also holding a leadership position in the House. I believe the term they like to use is "flip-flopping."
Mike, I agree, there is nothing in the constitution that says a word about abortion. However, I believe it should be a legal right and until someone can tell me otherwise without invoking the man upstairs, then I really don't think the Right has a leg to stand on about it. We've discussed this before, you and I...
As for whether or not the SC should be deciding things like that, well, I feel like much of the important civil rights legislation in this country exists because someone brought a court case up about it, which either ultimately struck down an existing law or established a legal precedent. Which is what the legal system is all about. The courts may be over crowded and corrupt, but I would tremble to think that they would ever be restricted in their jurisdiction (no pun intended) as they are the most direct means of recourse we have as members of the American public.
Exactly my point, Mike. Abortion, like a whole lot of other issues, should be decided at the state or local level. The federal government is supposed to be there to run foreign policy and ensure domestic security. Just about everything else they do was imagined by the founders (except Alexander Hamilton, who wanted the Federal government running everything, if memory serves... been a long time since those history courses) as a state by state issue.
My intention wasn't to turn this into an abortion discussion, I was merely using that as an example of a law the court established through precedent. Precedent is considered a valid, accessible means of legislation. So basically, I hear you calling for the abolition of the Supreme Court.
But what I really wanted to do was respond to this, because it's the point I've been trying to get across to you all along and now you've gone and said it yourself:
"What I can't stand is when a group of unelected officials decide to...dictate their moral values on all of us." Something we finally agree upon!
p.s. my last comment was in response to Mike. Not Scott. sorry!
According to http://althouse.blogspot.com/2005/05/how-about-supermajority-to-reject.html ,the authors of our Constitution initially wanted to require a 2/3s vote of the Senate to REJECT a judicial nominee. Why? Because judges are supposed to be appointed by the Executive Branch. The dems have decided to go against this and make it so that judges are really appointed by them, with the President's appointment only a formality, as they will block any judges they don't like. Despite the fact that the Constitution does say 1/2 to approve, the Dems are using the filibuster, a concept not even once mentioned in the Constitution, to make it 3/5s to approve a judge. They have, in all reality, stolen a power of the Executive Branch and thrown off the system of checks and balances.
The use of the filibuster to block judicial nominations is tantamount to Bush suddenly declaring a new ammendment. It's not his job! Now is it the Senate's job to put judges in office. They are stealing it for political reasons and going against how the system was designed to work. They will regret this weakening of the executive branch if they are ever in power again (and if they keep going like they are, with Dean as chair and hijacked by the far left, they won't be in power again).
Mike, I was being tongue in cheek about my comment and also taking you somewhat out of context. While you intended "unelected officials" to mean judges, I meant it to be members of the Evangelical Right Wing movement.
As for the Nebraska ruling, I was unaware of it, but you guessed correctly that I'm in favor of it. Again, I feel that same-sex marriage is an issue being driven by the Right on an evangelical basis and I think that is contrary to the constitutional structure of our country in which what God has to say is separate from what the government has to say. Just because the constitution doesn't explicitly state something about gay men doesn't mean they are a less-important part of the citizenry than I am as a heterosexual woman. Give me one good reason, aside from a reference to Sodom, Gomorrah or letters from Paul, that gay people should NOT be allowed to live together in matrimony? Seriously. (I'm not picking on you directly as I know you are ambivalent about gay rights, but I feel like the entire movement against gays is very religiously-based and that really bothers me.)
A few questions: what if 70% of the people decided that it was OK to send Jews to the gas chambers. Does that make it OK? Does that mean the other 30% had better hurry up and get on board? Sometimes the majority is not right.
Why is polygamy illegal? Beastiality? The answer is religion. So you can't hold these up as examples of why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. Besides, bestiality is probably already covered in laws against animal abuse, like pedophilia is illegal because of child abuse. Take out religion, and there are no good reasons why you should have the power to ban someone's "you know what" from doing anything in the privacy of their own home.
Civil marriage is a contractual basket that gives two people the ability to make a life together. It confers power of attorney, power to make life and death decisions, joint property, etc etc. Forget the word "marriage" which for some reason has conservatives freaked out. Why are they against private contractual agreements, which are becoming illegal under state anti-gay amendments?
I have no beef with two gay people wanting to be together and enjoy all the rights a married couple has. I think the government should get out of the marriage game and do civil unions in which any two people can unite and have all the tax breaks and such formerly accorded to married couples. Religions can then do marriages separately however they want.
Scott, sweetie, your blog makes my brain hurt. LOL. Thanks for visiting mine, but I hope you don't mind if I only check in and comment on yours every once in a while. I'm a smart girl, just can't spend my free time after work using my brain, HA! :P
Mike,
How do you feel about Socrates? Did you read him in college? Or what about Plato's Republic? Ever learn about Euclidean geometry? And what about Homer? Because there is strong evidence to suggest that all of these men engaged in homosexual activity at one point in their lives. Most Greek men of a certain social class did. A lot of people throughout history did. Men and women. To little effect on their success. My point is, there is no psychological basis that proves that this being attracted to a member of the same sex is a perversion the way getting it on with a pig or a horse is a perversion. And if you dig a little deeper into why YOU think it's a perversion, I guarandamntee you it is because the Bible tells you so. Which nullifies your argument because I said it had to be without biblical reference.
You go on to state in your second comment about gay rights that you don't really care what gay people do in the privacy of their own homes after you said "I don't think we should accept homosexuality" in your first comment about it. Are you confused about this? Seriously, what would you do if your son or daughter grew up, went to college and came home with his or her boyfriend or girlfriend? Kick them out?
Look, I grew up in the South; I know all about certain social aberrancies that make people uncomfortable and nervous like gay men or biracial couples. But the fact remains that gay men, white women and their black husbands and any other minority group are all citizens of this country. We all get equal access to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And just because part of the electorate is squeamish and undereducated about the situation doesn't justify denying people the right to be happy and to live their lives just like every other American who is straight.
Perhaps the reason I don't really understand the crux of this whole gay marriage debate is that I find it laughable that people talk so much about the "Sanctity of Marriage." What crap. I mean, hell, Jim Bakker couldn't even keep it in his pants and he had that jewel of a wife in Tammy Faye. And nobody really seemed all THAT offended by Britney Spears' Vegas nuptial or her subsequent union to that loser Kevin Federline. Let's get the divorce rate down to 15% and then we'll talk about how sacred we all think marriage is. Until then, if people want to sign themselves up for the potential headache of it all, then far be it from me to stop that. Also, I don't really believe you need to have God involved for it to equal marriage so I make no distinction between "marriage" and "civil union," because once everyone's wearing their rings, we still say define that person as "married."
And your comment about preventing two heterosexuals from "taking advantage of the system" is silly. Don't be ridiculous. We don't need to legalize gay marriage for two straight people to get hitched any way they'd like and qualify for IRS benefits. I can go to City Hall tomorrow with any guy I know except my brother or father and get married with very few questions asked so we can file a joint return next year.
Just for the record, you don't need a ring to be married.
But you do need a mood ring to be gay.
Post a Comment