DeLay
What a frigging idiot this guy is. He criticizes Justice Kennedy for doing research on the internet and on using foreign judicial opinions. It seems to me these are good things - being able to use new tools and being open to looking at different points of view to gain wisdom in making judicial opinions.
DeLay is the perfect example of what we should all fear - a technophobic, xenophobic, self-righteous, moralistic, aggressive, bullying, thug who wants to rule by force and intimidation. This guy, to me, is a much bigger problem than the Bush administration and we ought to join forces to condemn his behaviour.
The Republicans need to ostracize this guy. The democrats should go along with it, but not call for it themselves. Just allow DeLay to keep speaking and making a fool of himself is helping the Dems more than anything we can think of on our own.
4 comments:
I am certainly not a lawyer, nor an expert on Constitutional Law....however, it seems to me, on an intuitive level that the Supreme Court should very much be aware of legal matters and legal issues and how those issues are treated in other countries.
Most people feel the Constitution is a living document and judges often decide cases on the "spirit" of the law - as opposed to a rigid adherence to the literal text. To think the principles outlined in the Constitution, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are somehow only unique to the American condition or America is silly. I see no wisdom in willfully neglecting information that is available about how other judges in other countries thought about similar cases or how other societies operate that might shed light on our own. It seems to me stupid to think that the American Constitution has an answer for every difficult question and that judges are expected to blindly take their understanding of the Constitution and make decisions to difficult questions when there are cases and statistics and information out there that can provide clues and guidence from other judges in other countries who have come across similar issues.
And while I agree that US law should not be based upon popularity contests, I think Kennedy is wise to question an issue such as the juvenile death penalty - on many levels - juvenile rights, issues of fair punishment, usefulness of the penalty, past precedent, and Yes, world opinion, especially if it is overwhelmingly in favor of a particular side.
I actually think this is a good example because it makes ZERO sense to me why we would ever try juveniles as adults. If we allow this, what is the point of having the concept of a "juvenile." Why do we even have the category, if we're simply going to treat some juveniles as adults? From a logic standpoint it doesn't make the least bit of sense to me.
I can listen to an argument about why a juvenile might deserve to be executed (I don't think I would agree as a matter of law, although I might agree as a matter of moral punishment in a specific case) but I cannot fathom how we can say to ourselves certain juveniles deserve to be treated as adults. This seems to me to be a lazy short cut people use to get their own desired ends - which usually involves (in the cases of juveniles) seeing them executed...which is odd to me - why we would go out of our way to execute someone, especially if we have the option of locking them up for life.
I don't have a big problem with judicial activism. Yes, we open ourselves to a can of worms either way , with restraint or activism. Too much restraint in the wrong moment perpetuates misinterpreting the Constitution (viewing it as a living document, meant to be flexible and adapt to the times)
But I look at history, cases in which the Supreme Court has been active, Roe v Wade, Brown v Board, I think were good for this country.
But I'm certainly no expert in this area. There's a good article in the Atlantic this month about Renquist, who is a pillar of restraint...they argue that Scalia and Thomas have been the most active justices in recent times.
At one time I knew a lot more about Con Law than I do now, it's one of those things that has faded and been filled with data about movies.
Rehnquist
These are some interesting positions - ones I haven't heard before...especially the Brooks one.
I'd say a couple of things: The claim by Brooks that all the anger and fighting within Washington is due to Roe v. Wade seems to me a stretch...it rings similar to the Left claiming the reason 9/11 occurred is because we empowered OBL in the 1980s when fighting the Soviets. Part of it is certainly true, but it also ignores a tremendous number of events in between that contributed to our present state. Lumping it into a single cause is elegant, I'm just not sure to what degree it is accurate.
Regarding Brown - it was a bold decision meant to ignite change in a section of the country in drastic need of a shock. I would have supported Brown in the same way I supported the Iraq war - both were imperfect, but better than the status quo. Both ran the risk of being outside the jurisdiction of the US or the Supreme Court respectively, yet ignoring injustices in the name of jurisdiction, seems to me a kind of moral escapism and emblematic of what I've called nihilistic utopians before.
Now, the difference here, is that Brown can be evaluated because it's been a great deal of time since the decision. I think points made about the quality of education for african americans in this country are valid. It seems to me, however, the progress of education to african americans was not stymied by Brown itself, but a large number of other factors - some cultural, some governmental, some bureaucratic, that are separate than Brown.
For me, Brown is a symbol of where our country stands - do we believe in the idea of separate but equal or is the notion of separation inherently unequal? Brown, to me, was an attempt to clear a path. I guess we discovered after clearing the path that there was a bunch of other shit in the way.
Post a Comment