Posts Tagged ‘supreme court’

The problem of empathy …

Posted: May 18, 2009 by datechguy in opinion/news
Tags:

…as a qualification is not grasped by Talk Left:

Empathy — for the little guy, for the powerless, for the meek and mute and broken members of society who aren’t noticed by conservative judges, who can’t afford teams of lawyers to plead their cases — empathy allows their voices to be heard: voices of the ordinary and common, voices of the frightened and dispossessed, voices that deserve the attention of Supreme Court Justices.

Is that we can see what liberal empathy has done with urban areas such as Detroit, Washington DC etc. Place after place becoming dependent.

That isn’t the reason why it’s an issue the real problem is you never know who someone might empathize with. Empathy makes for good friends and neighbors but bad law, because the rules are not consistent.

But it’s a moot point anyway since the president will choose who he wants and there is almost no chance that anyone will be able to stop it.

Identity please

Posted: May 18, 2009 by datechguy in opinion/news
Tags: ,

I generally disagree with Darren Hutchinson but you can be sure he will give you not only an honest argument but a reasoned one. He does so again today on the subject of identity politics and the court:

Although Obama relied upon identity politics for his electoral success, the White House is instructing GLBT, Latino and women’s groups to kill the identity talk. Several GLBT, Latino and women’s civil rights groups have urged the president to pick a candidate who will enhance the Court’s diversity. No openly gay or Latino person has ever sat on the Supreme Court. Only two women (both white) have occupied a seat on the Court. And two black men have also served on the Court.

I agree that the candidate should not look like a “token” hire, but there are many persons of color, women, and GLBT lawyers who would make excellent Supreme Court justices.

Now of course who I would like to see on the court and who Professor Hutchinson would like to see are likely as night and day philosophically but like the professor I think a token hire is a bad idea. However the professor also says this:

White House is doing its best to toss aside the very identity-based movements and politics that won the election for Obama. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says that: “I don’t think that the lobbying of interest groups will help. . . .I think in many ways lobbying can – and will –be counterproductive.” Of course, Gibbs never identifies the dangers the groups create by stating their preference for diversity. Also, it seems odd that Gibbs would disparage “special interest” groups, when labor, civil rights, feminist, pro-choice, anti-war, glbt, and many other “interest groups” are essential components of the Democratic Party. Without their support, neither Obama nor Gibbs would have a job at the White House.

That may be so but it’s not relevant. You don’t want to end up with a “Black” seat or the “Asian” seat or the “Latino” seat etc etc etc.

Of course among equally qualified candidates race is irrelevant as long as the candidate is well qualified all the other stuff is moot.

The whitehouse is doing the right thing in de-emphasizing identity. Not only is it patronizing but once you have a quota established then it becomes an entitlement and that will divide us even further.

The disagreement is about a principle since of course the president will almost certainly make an identity choice. Unless there is an old Chicago debt (a la Abe Fortis) to pay back I can’t imagine that either of us will be disappointed with at least the qualifications of the selection.

Update: Somehow missed the word “like” in a sentence above.

“I’ve never had to explain something I never said”

Posted: May 1, 2009 by datechguy in opinion/news
Tags: , , ,

How does the congress prevent Arlen Specter’s defection from allowing republicans from blocking judicial nominations? You change the rules of course but Legal Insurrection says not so fast:

I don’t think it is likely that the Rules will be amended for a particular nomination. First, the rule requiring a minority vote only comes into play if Republicans decide to fight a nominee to the bitter end. Assuming Souter is replaced with a roughly equivalent moderate liberal, I don’t see Republicans picking this fight. The existence of the rule itself should have a moderating effect on the choice made.

Second, changing the rules mid-session would itself be the cause of opposition to a candidate, and would taint any nomination before a vote of the full Senate. Remember, as of now the Democrats still do not have a filibuster-proof majority in the entire Senate, and even if Al Franken eventually gets seated, it would take only one of the handful of moderate Democrats to oppose a nominee for the filibuster to succeed. By forcing a nominee through committee by changing the rules, the administration would be increasing the likelihood of a problem.

Third, Harry Reid shot himself in the foot on rule changes by insisting that Roland Burris could not be seated without presenting the necessary Secretary of State certification. Reid’s words about the sanctity of Senate Rules would come back to haunt him if the Senate changed the Judiciary Committee Rules just to force through a nomination.points out this is a statement that Harry Reid should have taken to heart.

Harry should have taken President Coolidge’s words to heart but the real killer is #1. Every left wing pressure group will be looking for the big payoff in judicial nominations. They will be pushing the president to nominate someone as far left as possible. That increases the chances that republicans with frankly nothing to lose will play every card they have in the deck.

Another indirect proof

Posted: May 1, 2009 by datechguy in catholic, opinion/news
Tags: , , , ,

The Souter resignation does several interesting things.

First of all of course President Obama is going to pick a liberal jurist to the court. With the more of Sen Specter there is absolutely no chance of blocking it even if they wanted to. He could pick Ward Churchill or Bill Ayers and we couldn’t block him.

It is inconceivable that this pick will not enrage and energize conservatives and republicans. If I wrote the worm turning post today it would be the newest item.

Second of all it demonstrates that elections matter! John McCain was not the ideal candidate but I held a sign for him for 7 hours on election day and I’m proud of it. If you are a conservative that stayed home or voted for President Obama remember if this liberal pick stays on the court for 30 years…you helped do this.

Third of all in terms of an indirect proof. This is going to highlight the pro abortion credentials of President Obama in the strongest terms possible. It is the single biggest disaster for Fr. Jenkins at Notre Dame that could happen. This highlights the unsuitability of President Obama for ND. It also puts Doug Kimec and the phony Catholics at Catholics United in the limelight, what will they say.

This is the type of thing that God does, he gives people opportunities to aid in their salvation. A situation is given where people have a chance to make the right choice. Catholics United, Doug Kimec, Fr. Jenkins and even President Obama have all been given the chance to do the right thing. That chance is a gift from God (all those ND Rosaries didn’t hurt either)

What is done with that chance is where the rubber meets the road.

Update: Legal Insurrection via the green room says president Obama’s candidate for the court might be blockable by republicans after all. Thanks to …Arlen Specter

Now this is interesting. Specter could allow a nominee out of committee if Specter was a member of the Republican minority, but as part of the majority, he’s just another vote. Here are the other Republicans: Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Jon Kyl, Jeff Sessions, Lindsey Graham, John Cornyn, and Tom Coburn.

The weak link is Lindsey Graham, who was a member of the Gang of 14. If Graham says the course, the Republicans may not be able to stop runaway spending, military retrenchment, and an interrogation witch hunt. But Specter may have handed Republicans a gift.

Has Specter’s changeover become official? Can republicans pull him from the committee because of his announced change. It will be interesting to find out.

Newer Entries