[GCFL-discuss] Supreme Court Nominee

[Discussion of the Good, Clean Funnies List]

Thank you. Sometimes I just don't have the patients for politics because
I never know the truth.

Lance
John 8:32 "You will know the Truth and the Truth will set you free."

On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 20:00:19 -0500 "Discussion of the Good, Clean Funnies
List" <gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net> writes:
> 
> On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 18:04:02 -0700 "Discussion of the Good, Clean 
> Funnies
> List" <gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net> writes:
> > Siarlys,
> > 
> >         You had commented a while back that this Supreme Court 
> > Justice was going to be pretty hard to foobar. But everything I 
> hear is
> that 
> > the Dem.'s hate the man already. Is there new info out there about 
> this
> 
> > guy that has changed things? Or are the Dem.s just locking their 
> feet
> in 
> > the ground no-matter-what in hopes of keeping some kind of power?
> > 
> > Sincerely,
> > Lance
> 
> Hi Lance,
> 
> All I can give you is my opinion, which I consider to be as good as
> Antonin Scalia's, and considerably better than Dan Rather's or Rush
> Limbaugh's.
> 
> I expect a majority of Democratic senators will end up voting for
> Roberts. There are some who will settle for nothing less than a 
> judge who
> is in complete accord with their own personal preferences, or seems 
> to
> be. (There is no such animal, no matter what your personal 
> preferences
> are). There are others who will ask tough questions, because that 
> is
> their job, before they approve someone for a lifetime appointment, 
> but
> will in the end vote to confirm. Objectively, he is qualified. He 
> leans
> in a conservative direction, but he seems to value what the law is 
> over
> advancing his personal agenda for the world. I haven't read any new
> information that raised sudden opposition where there was none.
> 
> I am amused by the flak over the fact that Roberts once did some pro 
> bono
> work for a gay rights legal brief. The Bush administration had for 
> weeks
> been quietly pointing out that the positions a lawyer takes in 
> private
> practice do not reflect what rulings he would make as a judge. 
> Quite
> true. In private practice, lawyers find a way to argue for whatever
> position their client is paying them (or not paying them) to argue. 
> Since
> the sloppily-labeled "right wing" has nowhere to go, they express 
> no
> concern. Since groups pushing for gay rights have no reason to be
> enthusiastic, they downplay it too.
> 
> Just as this individual piece of work is irrelevant, the Democratic
> demands for release of briefs Roberts worked on in the Solicitor
> General's office are probably irrelevant too. That is what gets the
> headlines as far as opposition is concerned. Again, Roberts was 
> working
> under orders and for a client. It probably means little about what 
> his
> judgement would be on the court. Nit-picking over specific cases is 
> a
> poor basis for choosing a justice anyway. And, again, justices look 
> at
> things differently once they are on the court. For comparison, 
> consider
> that Thomas a Beckett was Henry II's closest friend BEFORE being
> appointed Archbishop of Canterbury, but AS archbishop, he swung 
> around to
> insist on the prerogatives of the church, rather than the wishes of 
> his
> old friend.
> 
> The only thing that bothers me is that the media consider the 
> opinions of
> various pressure groups about a nominee for the Supreme Court to be
> newsworthy. The idea of organizations who will be practicing before 
> the
> court lobbying to get "their man" -- the one who will support their
> agenda -- onto the court is obscene. Look up Alexander Hamilton in 
> the
> Federalist Papers. The justices are appointed for life precisely so 
> they
> will apply the law, not follow the popular will. (Scalia has written 
> on
> that too). Running around with a microphone to ask pressure groups 
> what
> they think of the nominee is just an exercise in filling up a 
> balloon
> with hot air. It has little or no impact on the outcome. The 
> president
> submitted the nomination to the senate. He's not going to suddenly
> withdraw it because Jay Sekulow or James Dobson have doubts and make 
> a
> phone call. The senate has to vote to confirm or not. They aren't 
> going
> to swing one way or the other because the ACLU says "we don't think 
> this
> guy will accept all of our arguments."
> 
> I still believe Bush made a smart call. A known ideologue like 
> Priscilla
> Owen or Janice Rodgers Brown would have provoked a knock-down 
> drag-out
> battle, which he might have lost, and would in any case have 
> tarnished
> both his record and the court. Roberts will not be everything he 
> might
> have hoped for, but he will be reasonably conservative. You can 
> hardly
> expect a president to nominate someone he profoundly disagrees 
> with.
> Roberts has all the professional qualifications and no blatant 
> agenda
> that might disqualify him. But every justice has proven to be 
> different
> than anyone expected, which is how the process is supposed to work. 
> It is
> not really possible to rig the court.
> 
> I doubt if he will overturn any significant existing precedent. I 
> expect
> he will make some calls I believe are wrong in future controversies. 
> But
> not always. Justice O'Connor says he is an excellent choice in every 
> way,
> except he's not a woman. That's OK, on some other occasion, a man 
> can be
> replaced with a woman, and we won't get into having a specific seat
> reserved for women, or men, or people of specific skin color. Maybe
> sometimes all nine will be women. Maybe sometimes all nine will by 
> of
> African descent. Maybe sometimes none of the above. As long as we 
> get
> highly qualified people, who will leave the political debates behind 
> take
> advantage of not having to run for re-election, and take a hard look 
> at
> what the law and the constitution require, or forbid.
> 
> Siarlys
> _______________________________________________
> GCFL-discuss mailing list
> GCFL-discuss at gcfl.net
> http://gcfl.net/mailman/listinfo/gcfl-discuss
> 
>