Broken Masterpieces

April 20, 2006

SCOTUS Live

We just got back from our trip to DC. One of the highlights was seeing actual arguments in the Supreme Court of the United States. It was great to see real results of the Bush election and re-election. Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Alito looked great up there. Of course, Scalia was active. All justices were present and we only got about the last 10 minutes of the arguments. We waited in line in some light rain to get into the 3-5 minute line. There was another line to see a whole hour but there wasn't a guarantee of getting in. If you ever have a chance to see SCOTUS arguments then do it.

Posted by Tim at 05:44 PM | Comments (0)

October 31, 2005

Thoughts on Alito

In hearing some of the left going bonkers over Alito (Schumer, the memo Chris Matthews read) makes me think back to the Ginsburg and Breyer nominations. It's too bad that one side plays extremely dirty (and consistently) and will say and do anything to win. It's not just one or two folks but a standard approach for the left. Let's get busy with the hearings and get to an up or down vote.

I also have to laugh about the interpretation of why many conservatives were against Miers. The MSM wants you to think it was because she wasn't conservative enough. That wasn't the issue, it was that she wasn't qualified. Sure, she'd have probably voted with Scalia and Thomas but did not have the experience necessary to be on the court. I'd never think that the left would have the guts to go against someone who wasn't qualified if they were a sure pro-choice vote.

Posted by Tim at 09:47 PM | Comments (0)

It's Alito - Happy Days Are Here Again

Alito strong conservative on liberal court - The Changing Court - MSNBC.com

Anyone nicknamed 'Scalito' sounds good to me. This is why we need to elect Republicans. Now, we need to make sure folks like Spector don't get queezy.


UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has great coverage.

Posted by Tim at 06:46 AM | Comments (1)

October 27, 2005

Pick Janice Rogers Brown - Toobin Already In Smear Mode

How Appealing#003180

I'm just watching CNN on the Miers withdrawal and Jeffery Toobin has already began smashing Janice Rogers Brown. She's the obvious pick for Bush and would be a unifying choice for conservatives.

Posted by Tim at 07:04 AM | Comments (4)

Bush Gets A Do-Over - Miers Withdraws

CNN.com - Miers withdraws Supreme Court nomination - Oct 27, 2005

As it's been clearly displayed, Bush really did screw up the SCOTUS decision with Harriet Miers. Note to Bush: don't screw this up again. Pick a strong conservative who is an A+ that meets the Scalia/Thomas standard.

Posted by Tim at 06:39 AM | Comments (0)

October 13, 2005

Getting Out of a Mess

Peggy Noonan has a pretty good article about how Bush might want to get out of this Miers mess (registration required). I'm not the greatest fan of this nomination for various reasons but am not going to throw a fit like so many other conservatives. This whole episode is an absolute disaster. Could Bush have done better? YES! Could he have done worse? Can you say David Souter, I mean Alberto Gonzales? This didn't need to occur and there is a lot to blame to go around but now it needs to end. Miers needs to step down! Instead of something that could have worked out too many conservatives have muddied the water that it's time to cut the losses. Personally, I think she'd probably have become a solid conservative vote on the court but now it looks like she might not even get confirmed. Time for a "do over" and a choice of a Scalia or Thomas clone.

Posted by Tim at 07:20 AM | Comments (1)

October 03, 2005

Hewitt on Miers

Hugh Hewitt: October 02, 2005 - Do You Trust Him?

Harriet Miers isn't a Justice Souter pick, so don't be silly. It is a solid, B+ pick. The first President Bush didn't know David Souter, but trusted Chief of Staff Sunnunu and Senator Rudman. The first President Bush got burned badly because he trusted the enthusiams of others.

My Blog Father has spoken and, again, I agree. Just read what he has to say, then take a chill pill about this nomination.


Posted by Tim at 08:21 AM | Comments (0)

Harriet Miers is Nominated for SCOTUS

I'm seeing many conservative freak-outs about the new nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States. If you've ever seen Pulp Fiction with the scene at the end of the movie, there is a stick-up. The young lady is in total freak-out mode and this is what those conservatives look like. I recommend you take Jules' advice and be like Fonzie; BE COOL! So what if she gave money in 1988 to Democrats. At the time Gore and Bentson weren't far lefties at all. In the 1996 election cycle she gave to Phil Gramm for President and "he was conservative, before conservative was cool."

Look, at the end of the day the Supreme Court has moved to the right.

Miers, 60, said she was humbled by the nod. “If confirmed, I recognize I will have a tremendous responsibility to keep our judicial system strong and to help insure the court meets their obligations to strictly apply the laws and Constitution,” she said. - from MSNBC

"BE COOL!"

Posted by Tim at 07:00 AM | Comments (0)

September 05, 2005

Roberts Nominated To Be Chief

Michelle Malkin: THE ROBERTS NOMINATION

A pretty safe pick I guess. Scalia (with his bevy of on the record opinions) and Thomas (look what they did to him last time) were more deserving but Bush needs to get these nominations through and get the court moving in the right direction. In these times, it's best for Bush to just get it done.

Posted by Tim at 09:45 AM | Comments (1)

Justice Dies, Judges Recuse, What To Do

Chief Justice William Rehnquist dies at 80 . . .

You've seen the headlines. You know the impact.
Rehnquist's distinguished 33-year Supreme Court career has come to an end.

"And while historians will debate whether he helped lead change
or simply reflected it, Rehnquist's path indisputably traced a larger
transformation in society - from a time of burgeoning progressive
legislation and expanding federal power to the modern era of
judicial and political conservatism."

So writes Stephen Henderson for Knight Ridder.
(Article: Rehnquist journeyed from firebrand to measured leader. Sun, Sept 4, 2005.)

And so a questions arises. Has this 'modern era of judicial and political conservatism' come to an end as well? Or will we see an escalation of conservativism? It won't be long before professional pundits and blogdits weigh in on the matter. Especially now that two seats are vacant, a rare situation indeed. And an alarming one for many liberals.

For at issue is what hermeneutical key will the next two Bush-nominated justices use to interpret and reference the constitution. This is no small matter. It means applying the law as originally intended (or as literally written) or dynamically executing the law according to the modern cultural context (legislating from the bench?).

How important is this distinction? Without embellishment, it has meant the loss of more than 35 million lives.

Read on for more.

What bench legislation has caused the death of millions? Roe v Wade. The cultural question? Abortion.

Correspondent Stephen Henderson states:
"When the Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling permitting
abortion in 1973, it was William H. Rehnquist, the newest member
writing in his first major case, who penned the most provocative
dissent. He said the court was out of line recognizing a right that
wasn't enshrined in the Constitution and arrogant for deciding an
issue that should be left to the democratic process. The court's
rationale, he said, 'is far more appropriate to a legislative judgment
than to a judicial one.' " (ibid)

Which leads me to discuss an attendant topic pulsing along the current news wires.

Here's the headline: Judges decline abortion cases.
(Source: New York Times News Service. Sun, Sept 4, 2005.)

Here's the story: Due to their moral and religious convictions regarding 'taking the life of an innocent human being' (to quote Judge John R. McCarroll of Shelby County Circuit Court in Tennesee) some judges are recusing themselves from decisions over allowing pregnant teens to proceed with an abortion.

Tennessee is among 18 states that require minors to seek parental permission before terminating their pregnancy. However, some states like Tennesee also allow for an alternative process. Teens can request a go-ahead from a judge.

This puts the judge in a pretty predicament. If he or she refuses to take such cases on moral grounds, then he or she is accused of an unwillingness to follow the law. And aren't conservative judges suppose to simply apply the law as originally intended or literally written?

On the other hand, "If you requre judges to hear these cases when they are morally and, maybe, religiously opposed to abortion," says Helena Silverstein, who teaches law and government at Lafayette College in Easton, PA, "they are likely to impose their views on the minor." Meaning, the judge will refuse to allow the teen to abort.

And that could lead to an accusation of legislating from the bench. The very thing some conservatives fear might happen if the two new justices to the Supreme Court end up moving us away from a Rehnquist-shaped 'modern era of judicial and political conservatism.'

So what does all this mean for interested parties?

First, we should not too forcefully plant our flag on either constitutional interpretive ideology since both have flaws when tested by practical application. The pot calls the kettle black in far too many instances.

Second, we need not worry about what era we are moving into with regards to judicial and political climes. Our system of government has worked for over 200 years and the checks and balances, while sometimes swinging with the wind, do maintain an overall - and divinely guided? - balance.

Third, and not least, we should continue to pray for God's wisdom in the review, interpretation, judgment, application, and execution of the law. Yes, let's work to place men and women of integrity in places of leadership. But let's not place our trust in the mechanism of democracy - no matter who might serve as Supreme Court Justices in the future.

Reflecting on Romans 13.1,
GT

Posted by Garth at 05:54 AM | Comments (0)

September 03, 2005

Felt The Earth Move - Renquist Dies

So we just get back from a party at a friend's house and we turn on the TV and see the William Renquist has died. These are some big times, folks!

Posted by Tim at 09:49 PM | Comments (0)

July 26, 2005

A True Extremist On The Supreme Court

Oh my goodness! Check out the record of Ruth Bader Ginsburg at National Review. Talk about being out of the mainstream; if people were to simply vote on the issues Ginsburg was siding on there would be a totally lopsided result, and her side would not win. Just check out the cross vote tonight in San Diego. You can only guess where Ginsburg would stand, way outside the mainstream. "Parents Day" my butt!

Posted by Tim at 11:51 PM | Comments (0)

July 20, 2005

The New Language of the Pro-Choicers

Supreme Court Nomination Quotes - Yahoo! News - The pro-choice crowd won't use abortion terms but instead use "individual liberty", "upholding Americans' rights", "right to privacy" and "willingly overturn settled law". They know that the American people are turning on abortion and a solid majority will be pro-life. Medical technology assures that people will understand what really happens during an abortion and what is "aborted".

Posted by Tim at 08:26 PM | Comments (0)

July 19, 2005

It's John Roberts

Us conservatives should be dancing in the aisles on the choice of John Roberts. This is a great pick for President Bush; THE reason so many people worked hard to get him elected and get Republicans elected to the Senate. I don't know how much the court will shift to the right but it will shift. If Stevens or Ginsburg steps down then even putting Alberto Gonzalez in their place would work.

If there is a filibuster then we'll even get more conservative senators elected in 2006. It's a win/win for conservatives, plus it pisses off the MSM. Let's watch how they treat Roberts.

Posted by Tim at 05:44 PM | Comments (0)

July 01, 2005

O'Conner Retiring

O'Connor to Retire From Supreme Court

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court and a key swing vote on issues such as abortion and the death penalty, said Friday she is retiring.

Let's make sure to pick a justice that doesn't bow down to international precedence and someone who doesn't make law from the bench but interprets the law. Bush, here is your biggest chance to redeem your father's legacy, David Souter.

Posted by Tim at 07:55 AM | Comments (1)

August 06, 2003

Whatever Happened To Upholding The Constitution

This is outrageous. Supreme Court justices are supposed to rule on the US Constition, yet Justice Ginsburg clearly states she and others are not. They should be impeached immediately.

Posted by Tim at 07:39 AM | Comments (0)

June 26, 2003

The Supremes Strike Again - Sodomy Laws

I'm not a lawyer or much of a student of law but here's what I think about the overturning of the sodomy law s.

Just because a law is stupid does the Supreme Court have the right of overturning it? If it violates the constitution, sure. I'm not sure this law violated the constitution. The law is silly but the question is how far can states go in limiting behavior. What about incest laws? What about age of consent laws? Some states have 18 while others have 16 or even less. What about beasteality (sp?)?

The dissent had to do with the court taking sides in the "culture war". I see that point of view and agree with it. I am for overturning the laws but in the democratic way.

Some are happy that bad law was tossed, OK, but isn't that what a democracy is for? The 14th amendment is about equal protection not privacy. There are laws governing all sorts of private behavior. Are some of them bogus? Sure. Doesn't mean you can just break them. They need to be overturned through the democratic process not by judicial fiat, just like Roe v. Wade was "found" in the 14th amendment.

This is not a victory for privacy but another blow to equal powers. The Supreme Court has chosen to make laws that don't exist, strike down laws they don't like instead of being judicious and interpreting the constitution. The loser here is the idea of a republican democracy, again.

Update 6/27/03: So one of the comments accused my of hiding my feelings about homosexuality. That was not my intent. First, from a justice point of view it does not matter. In reply to the comment, I do not approve of homosexuality. I believe it is immoral and not something I think is in-born but can be changed. At the same time, I would vote against having laws outlawing sexual behavior between consenting adults. In the same breath I hold to my position stated above that the Supreme Court had no business repealing a state law that I do not think violates the constitution.

Another update 6/27/03: More clarification (thanks Kurt for keeping me on my toes) my sentence "I would vote against having laws outlawing sexual behavior between consenting adults" is really flawed. There does need to be limits and I believe a state does have a right to legislate. I'd vote for laws forbidding incest and bigamy, for sure. Those have real nasty ramifications. I'd even support adultry laws. I do not support pre- or non-marital sexual laws except for some exceptions like I stated above but do believe those laws do not violate the constitution. I do believe that marriage is for one man and one woman and will vote/support accordingly.

Posted by Tim at 08:48 PM | Comments (3)