Contempt of Court
May. 3rd, 2009 10:51 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
matthewdalyOkay, we're gearing up for another season of Supreme Court nominee follies. I hope everyone remembers that the roles are switched again. If you're used to arguing that someone would take the court into dangerous ground or that some youthful indiscretion is highly relevant to future governance, then those are now some conservative's lines. Don't steal them; we now believe that we live in a democracy and should just put the matter up for a fair vote in the Senate.
But whether the balance of power is with the left or the right, there are two things I am plum sick of hearing. Let's take this opportunity to silence them.
First, that we must be on guard against "activist judges" who "legislate from the bench". Enough. If you don't know what "judicial review" is, then look it up before you start talking in public. Yes, yes, it's not in the Constitution, and that tricksy John Marshall is a nasty usurper who decided that the judicial branch deserves to be a full-fledged member of the governmental triumverate, shut up. The precedent is two hundred and six years old, and is surely no small part of why the union survived so long. Get a helmet already.
Of course, perhaps Orrin Hatch is not so reluctant that the current Supreme Court is widely expected to eliminate key provisions of the Voting Rights Act just as soon as they can decide which is the right knife for the job. This is a bill that was embraced by both parties in the Legislature and triumphed by President Bush, and from what I understand it's difficult to find one of the affected states who is actually looking for relief. One wonders if the Court would decide that a local utility doesn't have standing to overturn a regulation on states if it were a more liberal issue, but no matter. The Supreme Court has the right to determine the constitutionality of laws, and if we don't care for that we can seek redress in constitutional ways. I only hope that this result will give us a respite from the concept that judges shouldn't be deciding what the laws are.
The second thing that I'm tired of hearing about is that we need to have judges who correctly interpret the will of the framers of the Constitution. This is one of those statements like "OUR pizzeria uses FRESH ingredients" that leaves you with the unstated impression that their competition does not. I doubt you make it out of law school, much less an exemplary judicial career, without appreciating the foundation of the Constitution at a significant level. I would hope that the overarching lesson is that the only thing the Framers agreed upon is that they had to compromise or else America wouldn't get out of the starting gate. (Alas, this seems to be the one lesson that Samuel Alito doesn't take to heart.) You can walk around history like a buffet saying that you agree with John Adams on this and Alexander Hamilton on that and James Madison on the other, but at the end of the day you're just cherry-picking to intellectually justify your personal notions of how the nation should be governed. That's unavoidable, but don't put yourself on a pedestal, and recognize that the rest of your colleagues are doing the exact same thing even if it turns out that they agree with Hamilton on this and Madison on that and Franklin on the other.
Okay, time in. Let's just pick someone who paid the taxes on their nanny, eh?
But whether the balance of power is with the left or the right, there are two things I am plum sick of hearing. Let's take this opportunity to silence them.
First, that we must be on guard against "activist judges" who "legislate from the bench". Enough. If you don't know what "judicial review" is, then look it up before you start talking in public. Yes, yes, it's not in the Constitution, and that tricksy John Marshall is a nasty usurper who decided that the judicial branch deserves to be a full-fledged member of the governmental triumverate, shut up. The precedent is two hundred and six years old, and is surely no small part of why the union survived so long. Get a helmet already.
Of course, perhaps Orrin Hatch is not so reluctant that the current Supreme Court is widely expected to eliminate key provisions of the Voting Rights Act just as soon as they can decide which is the right knife for the job. This is a bill that was embraced by both parties in the Legislature and triumphed by President Bush, and from what I understand it's difficult to find one of the affected states who is actually looking for relief. One wonders if the Court would decide that a local utility doesn't have standing to overturn a regulation on states if it were a more liberal issue, but no matter. The Supreme Court has the right to determine the constitutionality of laws, and if we don't care for that we can seek redress in constitutional ways. I only hope that this result will give us a respite from the concept that judges shouldn't be deciding what the laws are.
The second thing that I'm tired of hearing about is that we need to have judges who correctly interpret the will of the framers of the Constitution. This is one of those statements like "OUR pizzeria uses FRESH ingredients" that leaves you with the unstated impression that their competition does not. I doubt you make it out of law school, much less an exemplary judicial career, without appreciating the foundation of the Constitution at a significant level. I would hope that the overarching lesson is that the only thing the Framers agreed upon is that they had to compromise or else America wouldn't get out of the starting gate. (Alas, this seems to be the one lesson that Samuel Alito doesn't take to heart.) You can walk around history like a buffet saying that you agree with John Adams on this and Alexander Hamilton on that and James Madison on the other, but at the end of the day you're just cherry-picking to intellectually justify your personal notions of how the nation should be governed. That's unavoidable, but don't put yourself on a pedestal, and recognize that the rest of your colleagues are doing the exact same thing even if it turns out that they agree with Hamilton on this and Madison on that and Franklin on the other.
Okay, time in. Let's just pick someone who paid the taxes on their nanny, eh?
