Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
All the Treachery on One Side
I’ve said for a long time now that when justices are nominated to the Supreme Court and subsequently confirmed, then turn out to be traitors to the cause under which they were nominated, the treachery has a strong historical pattern of only going in one direction. They are nominated under the cause of conservatism, and they turn out to be liberals — seldom if ever does it work the other way around. That’s a real shame, because on courts when we say “conservatism” we refer to judges acting within the limits of their authority, and when we say “liberalism” we mean judges…well, not acting within any limit at all. And that’s always struck me as odd, since when they don the robe they make a pledge to do one and not the other. Rather than “conservatism/activism” or “originalism/activism” or “textualism/progressivism,” would it not be more accurate to refer to this spectrum as “oath-keeping/oath-violating”?
I can’t explain very confidently why it is that Supreme Court justices are nominated as conservatives and, over time, become activists, with some regularity; whereas almost never can a justice be said to receive a nomination as a liberal and then betray his cause by becoming a conservative. Studying the particulars of history, and knowing what I do about institutions that wield power, the best I can say is that it’s human nature to make your job more important tomorrow than what it is today. If our justices are little kids with homework, being a “conservative” is like actually doing the homework, and being an “activist” is like having a pillow fight, eating candy and playing games. Except little kids are usually supervised. Being on the Supreme Court means you have no supervision from anywhere at all.
Ann Coulter is now in her third straight week of trying to convince people that John Roberts, the latest nominee to the Supreme Court, is just more of the same of conservative-to-liberal backstabbing; the knife is there, it just has yet to come out. She has yet to convince me. She seems to be looking for a nominee who will promise during the confirmation hearings, “Yup, I’m going to overturn Roe v. Wade. Can’t wait to do it. Get five of me in there, and that bubble’s gonna burst.”
Annie, it ain’t gonna happen. I think somewhere between overturning an opinion you don’t like, and another traitor like Souter, there is probably a middle ground.
But I would encourage interested readers to go over her arguments carefully. The points she has gleaned out of her research, are interesting ones. Assuming they all check out factually, it’s a fascinating mosaic of deceipt not only by justice Souter, but plenty of justices like him — regardless of whether such examples ever had willful intent to deceive or not.
Read my lips: No new liberals, August 4
Fool me 8 times, shame on me, July 28
Souter in Roberts’ clothing, July 21
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.