I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Why doesn't this woman have a nationally syndicated radio show?
filibusters onward!
Another good quote:
The "Watch on the Rhine" quality of our public life these days deserves serious attention. As one who studies the small, buried stories on the back pages of major newspapers, I am becoming increasingly uneasy. This is more than just, "Boy, do their policies suck." There's a creepy advance of something more menacing than bad policies.
Absitively, posolutely! Now why is it that the SCLM never brings up/batters into the ground interesting issues like this?
Tony Scalia likes the death penalty, which is legal; therefore, any judge who opposes it on moral grounds should resign. Aha, but Tony doesn't like abortion rights, which are also legal; therefore, shouldn't Tony resign because he morally opposes a right that is legal?
Scalia reminds me of those fanatical, bloodthirsty Spanish prelates in Inquisition-era Europe -- he could be Verdi's terrifying creation, the Grand Inquisator of "Don Carlo" (except I hate to flatter a jerk like him with so colorful an association).
My problem with Pryor has nothing to do with his religion.
In Hope vs. Pelzer, which reached the US Supreme Court, Pryor defended Alabama's practice of punishing inmates who refused to work on road gangs by handcuffing them shirtless to a chest-high rail and leaving them there all day in the summer sun.
Pryor's position was that this did NOT constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the Bill of Rights, and even if it did, the guards should be immune from a lawsuit filed against them by the inmate. He also claimed that since the inmate could agree to return to work, it was the inmate's own fault if he remained handcuffed to the rail all day.
In a rare victory for mercy and humanity, the Court ruled for the inmate. (the usual suspects dissented - bet you can't guess who)
Anyway, I can see why Bush likes him. They have quite a bit in common, what with both of them being such utter bastards.
I just love molly.
(well, why don't you marry her?)
My problem with Pryor has nothing to do with his religion.
Nobody has a problem with Pryor's religion.
Go Molly! Go Molly! Go Molly! *cheers*
Yes, there is no reason at all why there can't be nationally syndicated liberal talk radio. Molly's articulate, intelligent, fair-minded, humorous (big plus), and her accent provides that individual flair that would be the icing on the cake.
Can't wait for Bushwhacked!
Re: Pryor and his defenders playing the religion card w/r/t abortion while maintaining strict separation of church and state when it comes to the Catholic Church's stand on the death penalty--
It's like Rehnquist et al. going on about states' rights when it came to anything racial. Just when they almost had you convinced there was some abstract separation of powers thing that they actually thought trumped how Blacks worked or went to school, up came the 2000 election and what-shoulda-been-obvious slaps you in the face: these people don't care about the states--they're just plain racists.
Similarly: Pryor isn't anti-abortion because he's pro-life--he's anti-abortion because it messes up people's lives and he thoroughly enjoys $hitting on people. Just what you want in a federal judge.
The Unknown Blogger inspired me to read Hope v. Belzer.
This line from Thomas's dissent makes my head spin:
"The right not to suffer from “cruel and unusual punishments,” U.S. Const., Amdt. 8, is an extremely abstract and general right."
Belzer s/b Pelzer
Why is it, in the age of the internet, Republicans never think they're going to be held accountable for the things they say?
Any judge opposed to counting the votes should resign.
Camden is beautiful in the summer, straightens what is bent, and helps you align everything so you can think again... (Obviously Molly's digs are doing the trick... man that was gold star stuff...)
Acadia is awesome in the fall too, shorter days, but same effect as above, soon... really need it...
Your reasoning is the one is screwed up.
Justice Scalia's point was that judges who do not support the death penalty should resign because they have to rule on whether someone gets the death penalty or not. A judge does not rule on whether a baby is killed or not each time a mother makes a choice to terminate her child. I think Justice Scalia has a valid point. Personal views should not keep judges from ruling on judicial matters or how they rule. Their rulings should come from the judges interpetation of the law. Your hatred for Judge Scalia is overwhelming your ability to reason.
Dennis Slater - that's not what Scalia said. What Scalia said is that any judge who opposes the death penalty should resign. Scalia is advocating the resignation of judges for reasons of their beliefs. He wants them to resign because of their personal views, not whether they are following the law. Read it again.
Slater has a point. So no county clerks can be Catholics because they DO have to file those pesky divorce papers.
Besides that, in capital cases we screen out JURORS who can't (won't) vote for death--no chance for jury nullification. At least that's what they do on TV.....
Sigh.
Further besides, Slater has no point. Judges still have to rule on abortion law, so Molly's point stands.
Can we vote for her?
In fact, learn to read a little better before you start accusing people of being blinded by their hatred.
Dennis, your point might hold a bit more water if Scalia were never to rule upon cases affecting a woman's right to an abortion.
Also, as I recall from Bill Moyers' fine NOW program a few weeks back, Pryor was the only state AG who filed an amicus brief in Bush v. Gore. The ardent states-rights-er told the Supremes to tell the Florida Justices to shut the hell up.
His nomination strikes me as payback/payoff. Politics at its rankest.
Hudson - it doesn't just strike me as a political pay-off, it mows me down like an 18-wheeler. You know, it really should be considered a bribe and thus an impeachable offense to nominate federal judges as pay-back.
When Molly gets as seriously alarmed by politics as she has been lately, it's enough to put the fear of god into me, too. Usually Molly just gets greatly amused by the goings-on. She isn't laughing lately.
Great column, but depressing. Usually Molly is optimistic even in the face of enormous stupidity, but she seems depressed in this column. Which makes me even more depressed at the way things are going. Sigh.
Has she won a Pulitzer lately? If not, why not?
Another good passage (on the brownshirt witchhunt to find judges who aren't sadistic enough for them):
The sentencing guidelines are the consequence of a 1984 crime law, passed at the height of the drug hysteria, that took effect in 1987. Victoria Toensing, Rosenbaum's lawyer, said: "I was present at the creation of those guidelines. May God forgive me for ever supporting them." Amen.
And so another moronic brownshirt fuck sees the error of their ways long after it could have done anyone any good.
Thanks for nothing!
Wow. And you guys pat yourselves on the back for your honesty?
This is what Scalia said: "In my view, the choice for the judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation rather than simply ignoring duly enacted constitutional laws and sabotaging the death penalty." In other words, a judge whose personal morality precludes acting in accordance with the Constitution cannot function as a judge, and should leave the bench.
And he's right. If a Judge cannot follow the law, she has no business seving in that position.
Abortion presents a different analysis for a Supreme Court Justice. As abortion is not a constititional right, having been invented out of whole cloth by the Court, a justice is free to disagree with Roe. Indeed, any justice with a proper view of the appropraite judicial role should do precisely that.
Has hatred really blinded you all that much that you have lost sight of the essential nature of adjudication, to wit, judgment, not will? Do you care ONLY about arriving at PC results?
Scalia is the best justice in recent times -- Bush v. Gore (a truly awful decision) to the contrary notwithstanding. (Everyone has an off day, and the temptation to slap down those clowns on the Florida Supreme Court must have been overwhelming. Pity, though. Bush would have won in the House anyway and the Court could have kept its hands clean.)
Why can't trolls bother to read the Constitution?
Great Ivins article. Good writing.
Give us Mario Cuomo as a Supreme Court nominee and then we'll see who says "Catholics need not apply."
Molly's spot on about political climate change. It's a scary time of abusive power.
Bush has claimed affection for Mexico, but really all he wants is to make America's oligarchy permanent.
Michael, you're correct in your assessment that many people here prefer the PC answer. However, you lost me after you said that Scalia was the best Justice we've had in recent times. Yeah, just what we need. An ideologue on the bench. He's the worst of the bunch, and the only one outside of Thomas I have little use for.
(A side thought: What if he meant "resignation" as in "Awww.. shucks?")
Hey Michael, I must have missed the amendment in the constitution that says; "All men shall have an equal opportunity to be put to death." The death penalty is the law in some states, the right to an abortion is the law of the land, I really don't see your point.
Why can't trolls bother to read the Constitution?
It's like Amadeus.
"Too many notes. Just take a few out."
I think everyone's missing the point. The Pryor nomination is not about religion, abortion, etc. It's a guy that the Right sees as bought, lock stock & barrel, and wacko enough to call their sort of criminality sanctioned, which is to say: justice. IOW, he's a Texas sort of judge.
The Bush inner circle has an agenda of packing the federal courts whose jurisdictions are DC, Texas, and Florida with their ilk. (They've already got the state courts in Texas and Florida and the USSC full of people of their liking.) To look at the situation as a whole, the idea in the White House is really to protect their buddies and their companies from criminal prosecution and civil liabilities. Everything else sounds like lip service to their voters.
This section of her column should really scare everyone.
"I keep thinking of Mussolini's definition of fascism: "Fascism should more properly be called ‘corporatism,' since it is the marriage of government and corporate power."
She has written of "creeping fascism" in earlier columns. She is obviously worried about this. I don't see anything happening now that could alleviate her fears.
Scalia is the best justice in recent times...
BWAAAAA-HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Ohhhhh, mercy...
I missed the part in the constitution where it gave the government the power to muck about in your uterus.
Scalia is a newt. The notion above that judges must follow the law is twisted. The point is that judges interpret the law. LOOK: Plessy v. Ferguson was a national disgrace. Nine, count 'em nine, Supreme Court justices recognized the immorality of continuing to follow it. Brown v. Board of Ed. overturned "separate but equal" precisely because the the highest court in the land quoted Dickens' Bumble: "The law is a idiot, a ass." (George Will loves this quote.)
In fact, this is precisely the point that Scalia (et. al.) IS currently making regarding Roe v. Wade. That is, abortion is legal, but ought not to be. The courts often make these changes, even though it should be left to the province of the legislatures. But clearly, legislatures are too reticent to act; re-election comes too soon. That's why the authors of the Constitution installed the Justices and other fed benchers for life--to protect them from the tyrrany of the majority.
This is Civics 101. Why didn't I just sleep through it like everybody else?
Atrios' comment on Pryor: "Actually, Pryor is under attack because he's a hopeless dipstick" has to be a clear indication of Atrios' rampant and rabid stupidity...
Hey Atrios, do your parents know they raised such a stupid child?
russ - Um, actually, that was Molly Ivins' comment on Pryor (see the link). Disagree with it if you wish, but please get it right before you go on about rampant and rabid stupidity.
How many of the judges that have been confirmed are Catholic? How many Democrats on the judiciary committee are Catholic?
After considering those points, then ask yourself if they're really being "anti-Catholic" or if that's just a desperate, pathetic, baseless smear.
Pryor has given every indication that he will not be able to ignore his personal beliefs and follow the law. That's what makes him unqualified.
"In my view, the choice for the judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation rather than simply ignoring duly enacted constitutional laws and sabotaging the death penalty."
A judge who acts in accordance with a belief that the death penalty is immoral ignores constitutional laws. This is what Scalia said. Taken objectively, this applies equally to Roe v. Wade.
Subjectively, I can understand how a conservative would not see this analogy. The death penalty is a state's Right; abortion is an individual right. Both are nationally and internationally controversial issues; both have been considered in a plethora of Supreme Court cases. Yet, a conservative's natural instinct is to laud state's rights while denying individual's rights.
Any judge who cannot act in accordance with the Constitution (a "living document"--i.e. court precedents are just as important in consideration as the original text), should resign. Would anyone hear argue that it would be somehow tragic to sabotage the death penalty, but not tragic to sabotage the basic rights which are this country's foundation?
hear/here
The death penalty is NOT "internationally controversial".
No other industrialized Western state uses it. The list of those states that do comprises: China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, .... Hotbeds of progressive public policy, all.
That puts us in good company. Until the US abandons this barbaric practice we should "SHUT UP" about human rights, to paraphrase Bill O'Reilly.
Whatever else, the nomination of Bill Pryor is evidence that the alleged conservative desire for "strict constructionists" is over. The guy is an ideologue, pure and simple.
But this is what liberals get for demanding litmus tests of judicial nominees on issues like abortion.
While the NYT editorial page may find it anathema, a very good case *can* be made that the Constitution does not contain a right to an abortion or, for that matter, anal and oral sex. (Quick: check your own copy of the Constitution.)
The real danger of men and women like Bill Pryor does not come in an abortion and anal-sex case (which on the 11th Circuit is probably one case in every 70,000), but in all the other cases that come before a federal court. These other cases involve a veritable plethora of issues, to which the activist Pryor will bring intense right-wing sympathies.
While the NYT editorial page may find it anathema, a very good case *can* be made that the Constitution does not contain a right to an abortion or, for that matter, anal and oral sex.
Strangely, it seems that the contrary case has already prevailed in the Supreme Court.
>>> Strangely, it seems that the contrary case has already prevailed in the Supreme Court.
Really? Gee, I have to start reading the papers more often.
My point concrned the NYT editorializing against right-wing nominees because they have expressed theoretical disagreements with Supreme Court decisions; this, according to the Times, represents a radical jurisprudence which disqualifies a nominee.
Surely, a judge on the 11th Circuit is bound to apply the law as determined by the Supreme Court. But the NYT has decreed that men and women who have ever publicly disagreed with the theoretical underpinnings of certain Supreme Court decisions are unfit for the bench.
With such regard for free thought and intellectual debate, it is no wonder so many people find that particular style of "liberalism" to be boring and avoided at all costs.
My point concrned the NYT editorializing against right-wing nominees because they have expressed theoretical disagreements with Supreme Court decisions; this, according to the Times, represents a radical jurisprudence which disqualifies a nominee.
In general, not only have these nominees voiced opinions that demonstrate a disregard for the Constitution, but they also possess an activist record of judgments that demonstrates this disregard.
While the NYT editorial page may find it anathema, a very good case *can* be made that the Constitution does not contain a right to an abortion or, for that matter, anal and oral sex. (Quick: check your own copy of the Constitution.)
I checked. Here's what you were looking for:
Amendment IX:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
And, one more for fun:
Amendment X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Included in there, precisely because it isn't mentioned anywhere else is a person's right to privacy, upon which Roe v Wade was partially decided.
To be a so-called "strict constructionist" is to blatantly ignore the Constitution itself, or at least some of its most important amendments.
Dear Seraphiel,
Thank you for helping me to understand. You're right. The Constitution's Ninth and Tenth Amendments clearly establish constitutional rights to an abortion and to engage in oral and anal sex. If only I had taken my own advice and read the damn thing!
Again, thank you for enlightening me.
Yours,
Leftover
Conveniently enough, the 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution also protect vaginal intercourse, and the right to have children.
You will notice that neither of those is specifically mentioned anywhere in the Constitution either. Thus, we must rely on the 9th and 10th to protect those rights as well.
Don't forget the right to fart, the right to live in a fart-free world, the right to refrain from smelling others' farts and the right to force others to smell your farts. Similarly, don't forget the right to brush your teeth, the right not to brush your teeth and the right to prevent others from brushing their teeth. Oh and also the right to play your stereo loud, the right to prevent others from playing their stereo loud and the right to force others to listen to my loud stereo.
Like the rights listed above, these are no where enumeratd in the text of the Constitution. Accordingly, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments protect them, even though they are facially contradictory.
Seraphiel, with respect, arguments predicated on the Ninth and Tenth amendments reduce to nonsense, as they are circular in nature.
Seraphiel, with respect, arguments predicated on the Ninth and Tenth amendments reduce to nonsense, as they are circular in nature.
How gratifying that you have so much respect for the document upon which our country was founded.
The standard that has been established for such things is what they call a "compelling state interest," in which loud stereos and dental-interference could be easily construed to conflict with another person's right to privacy, or somehow endanger another person.
Conversely, there is no such interest in preventing people from having children, unless the people in question have demonstrated negligent or otherwise harmful behavior. No interest in preventing two consenting adults from having sex (be it straight missionary or two guys 69ing, or whatever) because, wonder of wonders, that's nobody else's business. In a similar vein, abortion, as a medical procedure involving a person's own body, is nobody's business but the patient and the physician.
Honestly, it's not that complicated. I'm sure they have large books about this stuff at your local library.
A judge who acts in accordance with a belief that the death penalty is immoral ignores constitutional laws. This is what Scalia said. Taken objectively, this applies equally to Roe v. Wade.
No. The death penalty is referred to in both the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. Hence, by definition, it cannot be unconstitutional. If it is to be abolished, that initiative must come from the Legislature. Abortion is NOT in the constitution, nor is "privacy". Just think of how spiffy the constitution would be if we could read a Millian philosophy into it. But it's not a libertarian document, and no judge possesses the right to render it so.
A conservative's natural inclination is not to favor either state or individual rights, but to chanpion the language of the document itself, and not have judges making it up as they go along. Judges have no more right to invent a "right" to abortion than they do to invent a right to private drug use. Whatever one might think of the merits of the policy, the constitution simply doesn't speak to it.
Oh, and when people say, "No Catholics Need Apply", what they mean is "No Catholics who accept Catholic doctrine need apply". One notes that not a single one of the judges objected to EVER stated that he/she would deviate from the law of the land as it exists today. The fact that they happen to disagree with it suffices to disqualify them.
Oh, and Young. I ASSUME that you are absolutely besides yourself with anger, at the recent Supreme Court gay righs case, which overturned a precedent -- Bowers. After all, if Roe is sacrosanct, and part of the constitution, because the Supremes said so, so, also, should Plessy, Dred Scot, and Bowers be sacrosanct.
Or is precedent only holy when you happen to agree with it?
Any person incapable of understanding that a even good result -- as, I submit, any good libertarian would agree Lawrence produced -- does not justify a judicial decision fails to understand ajudication. Lawrence was wrong not because the result was bad; it wasn't. But because, in the absence of a specific constitutional provision to the contrary, not here present, the states have the right to act as they please. The solution to bad policy is an election, not a lawsuit.
Civics, 101, I think someone called it.
Good explanation, Michael, of the difference between good policy and good adjudication.
And Seraphiel, I have no need to go to the library to bone up on the subjects of the Ninth and Tenth amendments. I studied them in law school and am quite familiar with them. Even a cursory review of the legal precedent and secondary literature will demonstrate that the theory you posit is deemed an unconventional one.
In any event, my initial point simply was that intellectual disagreement with the Supreme Court's reasoning in its decisions should not render a nominee unqualified for the bench.
my initial point simply was that intellectual disagreement with the Supreme Court's reasoning in its decisions should not render a nominee unqualified for the bench.
No, and nobody (other than Scalia) was suggesting that it should.
The problem currently before the Senate is Pryor's past behavior and stated position that the laws of the United States are subordinate to the laws of "God" as he perceives them.
Except, well, the 9th and 10th have that clause in them, and the Supreme Court on many cases has ruled that the citizens of the United States do, indeed, have a right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution.
Based on that foundation, Lawrence was a perfectly good decision, reaffirming the rights of individuals who, having committed no other crime, should be free from government intrusion in their bedrooms.
But if you're going to insist that gay people have no right to have sex, then you may as well start barging into the homes of straight people and verify they're not getting it on. Oh, and make sure people don't have any kids. Or, better yet, regulate how many they can have. Yeah, that's a good idea... Ahem.
This is the most brain-dead legal discussion I've had with *anyone*, including all the Federalist Society types that populated my law school. If this is the state of liberal intellectual debate, it is no wonder we are getting our asses kicked by the right wing.
This is the most brain-dead legal discussion I've had with *anyone*, including all the Federalist Society types that populated my law school.
Nobody ordered you to take an absurd position and defend it as vigorously as you have.
Anyway, it's obvious we have different interpretations of something that's fairly clearly written, so, whatever.
I may have misread your comments, but it certainly sounded like you think states should have a right to ban sex between gay people, but shouldn't have a right to ban sex between straight people. I hope I was wrong in getting that impression out of you, since such a position is ridiculous in a number of ways.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
