Speaking of crazy judicial opinions, check out the DC Circuit's decision about US currency... I've thought those treasury bastards were pretty damn bigoted for years now...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080..._ge/
blind_money
Iran doesn't have universal health care, either.
Huh?
Did you just try to make a point?
McCain is as moderate as the come in Washington.
So stop whining that it could possibly be another 4-8 years before liberals can pack the courts to enact their policies unpalatable for public vote.
I think Toobin tends to conflate policy with jurisprudence when he says: "According to McCain, the United States apparently belongs on this dismal list".
Isn't there a distinction between the means and the end? I read McCain's statements to be largely about the role of various methods of constitutional interpretation (i.e., international law) rather than the outcome of Roper. Is it really fair to say McCain thinks the U.S. belongs on the "dismal list" of countries executing minors? One could certainly disagree with using international law, for example, to interpret the constitution without believing we should execute minors.
Sanford is the worst.
Kennedy's reference to international law in Roper has been grossly misconstrued. Even a cursory reading of his opinion shows that his mention is a far cry from reliance. McCain's perpetuation of that misconstruction is ignorant at best and dishonest at worst. Either way, he's not a guy I trust to appoint honest-to-God jurists instead of ideologues.
And you trust Barak or the Hillster?
Admittedly relying on little more than educated guessing, yes.
First of all, look at the only two Democratic appointees on the Court right now -- Breyer and Ginsburg. Both follow jurisprudences that are generally liberal, but neither can rightly be called an ideologue.
Secondly, I appreciate both their commitments to appointing "real people" to the Court, and not beginning and ending a selection process with judges. If there's an ivory tower institution in the federal government, it's the Court. The presence of a couple of people who have been out in "the real world" and can properly consider the effects of judgments on everyday Americans would provide a welcome reinvigoration.
And finally, I admire the fact that they're both well versed lawyers (especially Obama) with firm grasps of constitutional law who, presumably, would require similar groundings from the appointees. I'm not sure that President Crazy would know the Ninth Amendment if it walked in his office.
You're starting to sound like a lawyer. You've got to do something about that.
Uh, there are a lot of lawyers that wouldn't know the Ninth Amendment if it walked into their offices, sat down at their desk, and offered to bill hours for them.
And Ginsburg not an ideologue? I guess you mean in every area other than equal protection and "reproductive rights"?
Ginsburg's abortion jurisprudence is a lot more nuanced than you're giving her credit for. Read some of her stuff from the D.C. Circuit. A lot of Democrats in Congress were downright scared of her abortion jurisprudence when she was nominated.
Commenting by HaloScan
