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...
Remember This
Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman to be appointed by the Supreme Court — by that male chauvinist pig conservative Reagan, the ol’ dolt — is expected to resign before the beginning of the next October term.
In other words, after years of crescendoing rhetoric about the process of appointing judicial officers, we’re in for the Mother of All Battles as President Bush makes a nomination that really and truly matters. If any poll is ever done by any news organization besides Fox, on the popularity of the filibuster that actually mentions the word “filibuster” I will be amazed.
In the ensuing din, remember this. What follows below is the high-level breakdown that a lot of people want to know anyway. I’ll make it real easy.
We have three conservative justices on the Supreme Court. These are the guys who get distracted from reading the Constitution and other laws they are supposed to interpret, just some of the time. This is Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
We have four liberal justices on the Supreme Court. These are the ones who get distracted from reading the Constitution and other laws they are supposed to interpret, nearly all of the time. John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and David Hackett Souter, that last one being the guy whose house is being subject to the eminent domain process he thought was so great in Kelo v. New London. (Morgan pauses to giggle like Sheriff Roscoe P. Coltraine.)
O’Connor, together with Anthony Kennedy, represents the swing faction on the Supreme Court. These are the Justices who screw up on interpreting the Constitution about half of the time.
So there’s your handy breakdown. Conservative, swing, liberal. They use the Constitution as toilet paper some of the time, half of the time, nearly all of the time, respectively. There ya go. A little bit conservatively biased, would you say?
Well surprise surprise, guess what. You are going to have a heck of a time finding a reasonable, intellectually well-thought-out disagreement to the way I’ve broken that down. Oh sure a lot of people would get huffy and do some yelling. But it’s a matter solid logic, that due to the different work that is involved in judicial duty, the word “conservative” means something different in the court system than it does in Congress. It means to follow the instructions — something all of the Justices swear to do when they assume the robe.
I’m not kidding. There is a bitter ideological squabble over whether Justices should do what they said they would do when they got sworn in. If they do it, they’re “conservative” and if they don’t do it, they’re “liberal” or “moderate” or “progressive” — not what you would expect them to be called, which is “impeachable”.
This isn’t really up for debate. Not by-and-large, anyway. Sure, some liberals can go cherry-picking and find some decisions here & there and say “look what Scalia did a few years ago, over here.” Just remember this. By and large, the Justices we call “conservative” are the ones that do what they are supposed to be doing — and more often than not, they are protecting our individual liberties, while the “progressive” justices are the ones placing those liberties under assault.
Do not believe me. Read the decisions yourself. This is the season for reading — you’re reading now, aren’t you? Make a habit, in the months ahead when we’re all going to be arguing about this, to download the decisions about which you have some questions. Findlaw is an excellent resource. And if you want some direction, you could start with the decisions I was complaining about last week, followed by some of the ones you’ve been hearing the most about here & there over several decades. Roe v. Wade would be a good one. I would also recommend a long trip back in time to the Marbury v. Madison decision which made the Supreme Court the final arbiter of the Constitution to begin with. You should also crack open the most pivotal decisions, Brown v. Board of Education, Lawrence v. Texas and Atkins v. Virginia.
Make a habit out of it. And by all means if some liberal guy says “That Morgan Freeberg is all wet, here why don’t you read this one too” then by all means do so. And of course e-mail me with your thoughts after you have done it.
But remember ONE thing. That being “liberal” on the Supreme Court means essentially pulling brand-new rights for people out of your ass, is beyond dispute. Liberals call this being progressive, or revolutionary, or something. Al Gore called it seeing the Constitution as a “living, breathing document.” Remember this one thing…logically, if I can dream up some brand-new rights for you because I got a case I’m adjudicating and I’m wearing a robe — why then, it’s a matter of simple logic that I can take your rights away just as easily, right?
Without an election taking place to validate the change in rules.
How often should our new Justice screw up on interpreting the Constitution? Some of the time, half of the time, or all of the time? It really just comes down to that.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.