supreme court
Mainstream extremism: dismantling our Constitution
Submitted by Drew Mckissick on Tue, 07/27/2010 - 12:39As the final vote in the Senate on Elena Kagan’s nomination to the US Supreme Court draws near, there’s little doubt that she will be confirmed, given the Democrats large majority. But it will be a missed opportunity if Senate Republicans don’t use the debate to make some larger points about the judiciary and the size and scope of our government.
The problem is that when it comes to the American judiciary, what once was extreme has become mainstream, and the views of government held by those who wrote and ratified our Constitution are today considered extreme and out of date.
Supreme Speculations and Implications
Submitted by Drew Mckissick on Wed, 04/21/2010 - 12:50
Now that Justice Stevens has made it official that he will be resigning at the end of the current term, Barack Obama gets his second opportunity to make a lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court. As usual, the speculation is as rampant as the implications are huge.
The bulk of the speculation centers on what direction Obama will take. Does he try to capture some of the political middle ground he’s lost in the eyes of the public over the past year, or does he go with his heart and pick someone as liberal as he is?
Of course the timing couldn't be worse for Senate Democrats. They are already weary of political combat due to the battle over ObamaCare, which came in the aftermath of the fight over the stimulus, etc. As a result, the Democrats in red/purple states that are up for re-election this year aren't too keen on having Obama pick anyone who might be deemed too radical. They’ve seen the polls and would rather not add one more log to the growing fire of conservative activism in an election year.
Senate Republicans should use Sotomayor to put Democrats on the spot
Submitted by Drew Mckissick on Tue, 07/21/2009 - 11:09
With a newly minted sixty-vote Democrat majority in the US Senate, the approval of the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is all but assured.
But what isn’t assured is that it won’t cost the Democrats something before all the dust settles. And that’s up to the Republicans.
Do they have what it takes to make her positions on hot-button issues so toxic that the Democrats from “purple” or “red” states who support her will find themselves in political hot water back home?
Her record represents just such an opportunity.
Time for the GOP to adopt the "Schumer Doctrine" on judges
Submitted by Drew Mckissick on Wed, 06/24/2009 - 10:53
It seems that every time we have a contentious judicial nomination process, especially for the Supreme Court, a great fuss is made over not asking certain questions. More to the point, we're told that nominees should not answer questions that could disclose how they may rule on certain issues in the future.
Hogwash.
The problem with this notion is that the federal judiciary has grown ever more powerful over the years versus our other branches of government. Further, the Supreme Court is held to be the final arbiter of what the Constitution actually "means" at any given point in time - information that's surely useful to the people that document is meant to govern.
Republican opportunities in the Sotomayor nomination
Submitted by Drew Mckissick on Thu, 06/04/2009 - 14:23When it comes to the confirmation process for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, Republicans have an opportunity to do something that would benefit both themselves and the nation. That is, they should use the process as a chance to hold forth on the meaning of the Constitution and the proper role of the judiciary in our political system and society.
Three main areas are ripe with opportunity for Republicans if they have the nerve to play hardball.
First, the notion that “empathy” should play any role in American justice.
Obama previously stated that he wanted judges that had “empathy” when it came to how they made their decisions. But empathy is merely a euphemism for justifying politically liberal results.
Hooray for the Supreme Court
Submitted by Drew Mckissick on Tue, 07/18/2006 - 23:00Hooray for the Supreme Court. Yes, believe it or not, they actually do deserve some praise. Specifically the members of the majority who recently held that Vermont's restrictive campaign finance laws violated the First Amendment's free speech provisions.
This development comes at an opportune time in our political history. Currently, our free speech rights are besieged by politicians using the boogeyman of political corruption to build support for laws which themselves corrupt our political system by limiting our ability to participate in it.
From the Blog |
