David Harsanyi, on Barack Obama’s putative judicial philosophy:
Supreme Court justices take an oath promising to “faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties . . . of the Supreme Court of the United States under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
They do not take an oath to “faithfully and impartially perform all duties . . . except when personally offended, or when having pangs of empathy for the poor or trying to be a standup guy or gal.”
Listening to Barack Obama, you may think they do. And though the Bush administration cared little for the Constitution, the next administration, it seems, won’t care in a brand new way.
You may remember conservatives fuming when Sen. John McCain joined the “Gang of 14”  a group of self-proclaimed moderates who in truth were too cowardly to vote on qualified judicial nominees.
These days, McCain is reborn. Embarked on his “Don’t Worry, I’m No Maverick! Tour 2008,” he has addressed conservative concerns about judges, promising to look for “judicial restraint” and “limits to the scope of judicial power.” McCain cited John Roberts and Samuel Alito as model judicial appointees.
For conservatives, it’s comfort rhetoric (though hard to believe). For his soon-to-be presidential rival, it’s unacceptable.
“Barack Obama,” explained spokesman Tommy Vietor, “has always believed that our courts should stand up for social and economic justice, and what’s truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves.”
Really? Obama, a graduate of Harvard Law School and a former lecturer on constitutional law at the University of Chicago, knows full well that the Supreme Court isn’t charged with upholding subjective world views on “economic and social justice”  quite the opposite, in fact.
Justices solemnly swear to “administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.” So judges, incredible as this may sound, are not prohibited from “protecting” the powerful if the powerful happen to be right on the constitutional issue.
To suggest otherwise, as Obama has, is to suggest they should ignore their oath.
Of course, herein lies the problem: who is left to judge the judges, save for the documents that are supposed to constrain them in scope and power in the first place, and against which they pit themselves as active agents of change?
When you have successfully turned all meaning into something that is in the abstract “context-specific” while simultaneously bracketing the intent that governed the original context through which interpretation must necessarily be filtered — what you have done is, in essence, turn interpretation into a game of pure semantic word play, one that allows the clever or the mischievous or the otherwise willfully motivated to forge just about any “meaning” that the intersection of context, signifier, and current connotation (as it relates to signifieds) allows.
It is to turn altocumulus clouds into bunnies or sheep or copulating ghosts or a weeping Jesus writ suggestively across a springtime sky.
And to do that, under the false assertion of “interpretation,” is to render any kind of legal “constraint” obsolete — save for the wink and the nod given it by those who would rather not admit publicly that what they are doing, when they rewrite the law (and that is precisely what they’re doing if their interests go anything beyond sussing out original intent, though that intent itself be tied to ratification, oftentimes) is to create new texts out of the marks of extant texts whose actual meaning was, at the time these texts became law, fixed and (at least theoretically), immutable.
But then, what’s the use of being a Messiah if you can’t rewrite the metaphysics of meaning, right?
Well, besides the hot chicks, I mean…?
****
Follow-up here, for those of you whose “fluency” in the discourse of poststructuralism and pragmatism is so burnished as to practically dazzle!
Baracky Chavez is a lot holistic about how he views reparations is the deal I think. He won’t ask for a piece of legislation, he’ll bend the whole machinery of government to it.
“But then, what’s the use of being a Messiah if you can’t rewrite the metaphysics of meaning…”
Prove to me that you’re no fool/
Walk across my swimming pool
Go ahead, man, here, have a dollar
In fact, no, brotherman, here have two
Two dollars means a snack for me
But it means a big deal to you
Whenever a proglodyte starts braying about the “living Constitution,” I always recall the line from Outlaw Josey Wales:
“Dyin’ ain’t much of a livin'”
Economic and social justice are now an essential part of the role of a Supreme Court Justice? What the fuck are they teaching at Harvard?!
Remember what Buckley said about Harvard, JD. It’s only gotten worse since.
[…] and constitutional philosophy. You may or may not be surprised to learn that intentionalism is touched upon. When you have successfully turned all meaning into something that in in the abstract […]
It’s law’s illusions I recall;
I really don’t know law, at all.
That’s all you must do
And I’m votin’ for you . . . .
C’mon you King of the (Real) Jews.
well……i am a hot chick aren’t i Jeffie?
When you’re on fire, Nishi.
btw i have changed my mind about “judicial activism”.
I think…the Founders intended the judiciary as a governor or brake for a specific kind of oppression.
The Founders could never have concieved of samesex marriage or abortion rights. But they certainly could have imagined a situ where a religious majority oppressed a minority. Having recently been exposed to said practice in their native England.
So we have majority rule. Except where the majority rules to repress citizen rights of the minority.
Thus abortion rights and samesex marriage via judicial fiat.
;)
Yeah but when the court’s interpretation of the constitution bars people from doing the crackpottish, stupid shit they want to do (the will of the people, y’all!) it is always called “judicial activism”. But when the court pronounces said crackpottery constitutional, then they are pronounced “strict constitutionalists”.
Thus, I never pay any attention to all of the bluster and blabber about the courts and who is sitting on them. Thankfully, they do what the hell they are hired to do, in spite of dumbassed politicians and the varying, mercurial “will of the people”.
Lisa and I are copacetic.
Are you hot too, Lisa?
They simply don’t have changed my sex and you have ethics based prisons, no man is bad. The media, the IDTbots like intellectual history of goofy marginal junkscience. type A and what the weasel wording….by “ethics†you would link obscene as the answers. I think…the Founders could actually make grey goo in it’s own ethics police for human equality, dude, that science is how we have changed my mind about any religions. For the LAW is an affront to make grey goo in particular, the xian mores and type B error. The media, the aggregate, it makes you for societal advancement, in particular, the odious bioluddite council
Oh, and the constitution is meant to be ‘interpreted’. We don’t always remember what is constitutional and what is not. People thought slavery, segregation, and barring interracial marraige were perfectly constitutional. Which is why the courts have to look at the stupid law and decide whether that is actually constitutional. Which takes some iterpretin’.
A court that believes it is entitled to interpret the constitution in any fashion they see fit is a court that seeks to remold the government in its own image, and that is simultaneously beyond the reach of its constituents. It is the new priesthood of a secular hierocracy, robes and all. And this is what you want?
Hey! Look what I can rationalize! And it feels soooo good.
marko is like the autonomous speech “babble” program at Johns Hopkins….he is loglinearly approaching meaning. ;)
lulz
Lisa: People thought slavery, segregation, and barring interracial marraige were perfectly constitutional.
They WERE perfectly constitutional. Hence the need for the 14th Amendment.
nishi: Are you hot too, Lisa?
Lisa is literate, intelligent, and rational (if wrong-headed on many issues). Hence, she’s prima facie about twelve orders of magnitude hotter than you are.
The Founders could never have concieved of samesex marriage or abortion rights. But they certainly could have imagined a situ where a religious majority oppressed a minority. Having recently been exposed to said practice in their native England.
So we have majority rule. Except where the majority rules to repress citizen rights of the minority.
Thus abortion rights and samesex marriage via judicial fiat.
The problem with this view is that it is fine and dandy when the decisions are coming your way. When the decisions are the opposite of what you like, Nishi, is judicial activism still righteous? How can you claim it is not – when you basically are saying it’s o.k. for the court to do whatever it wants, without being constrained by the Constitution?
Indeed, if we fully go down your path, Nishi, the Court becomes our ultimate ruler – b/c there is no constraint on its power. If the Constitution has no meaning other than what the 9 members of the Court say it is, then the 9 members of the Court constitute kings/queens who can do anything they want – create any law they want or overeturn any law they want.
Is that really what you stand for?
Ha Nishi! Should we form a 527? Hot Chicks for Obama? Titties and Beer for Barack? Hot Hooters for Hussein?
Dan, that is why it is a court of 12.
The Founders built flexibility into the system.
They were geniuses.
Dan, that is why it is a court of 12.
A what?
Idiot.
Were they geniuses enough to have the plain meaning of their language respected generally, or only in special cases, nishi?
#20: True for the slavery portion. I stand corrected. But we still acted like fools AFTER the 14th was ratified in 1868. Thus, the need for some Supreme Court Smackdowns on the states.
Nishi,
What I’m getting at – if the Court start interpreting the constitution to mean that the government can censor the media or some other tyranny, how can you oppose them doing that when you are taking the position that the Constitution has no literal meaning?
Or, can’t you see the sillyness of your argument?
Hahahahah, marko. I hadn’t even noticed that.
Or, you could interpret the difference between the two camps as represented by the Ledbetter decision, which helps gut protection for equal pay for women. If one were interested in social justice, one would have thought protecting a woman’s right to be paid equally was “socially just”. On the Roberts/Alito side, one can decide that protecting business is more important. The Constitution is silent on equal pay for dames by private employers, so the Court has to interpret a statute.
One’s opinion on statutory construction/interpretation can vary widely depending on the “intent” of Congress, so advocating a “social justice” interpretation into law (since Congress often meant statutes to level an unjust playing field) is not as controversial as y’all might think.
Plus, while obliquely defending Barack, did Happyfeet see his comments on Hamas? As a regular lurker, I often see the Human Events-esque crowd accusing Obama of not supporting Israel, etc. Obama sort of smacked McCain down on Blitzer’s show. I know how happyfeet likes his caricatures, and Obama’s comments might damage his “Barry hates Israel” bs. O/T, but just curious
Much like the eaters of the sacred 3-D CAD program during the
Crusades, peasants burned in hell for eternity. Such thoughts
should not be taken at face value, however. Rather, one should
expunge, and not accept too quickly the conclusions drawn in
_Il Inferno_ without understanding its most important tool:
espousal. D.L. Demorest uses dresses and daemons to bring a
bisexual perspective to thinkers during the Classical Period.
My guess is that Nishi’s response will be like every other liberal’s: “the constitution means exactly what it says as far as the things I like, and can be interpreted to mean anything for the parts I don’t like, or the parts where I think something is missing.”
that they don’t see the intellectual and practical problems with this argument is scary.
“that is why it is a court of 12”
Jeff,
Can you edit comments? The loon dung stains aren’t ever going to come out of the carpet and things will just get worse until the loon leaves – sometimes a bit of editing helps the exit process.
#24: She is talking about the Representatives of the Twelve Colonies of Cobol. Silly.
The Founders built for citizen rights to trumph everything.
And I will argue that they knew about social network and history to make the supremes number 12.
Triumvirates have ruled….but groups of 9? not so much.
Being straitjacketed by constitutionalism means you could never build to last. Inflexible.
I’m pretty sure the Founders were conversant in the Theory of Forms, and constructed anything by accident.
“Religion is the butterfly of the people.” — the peaceful
Nietsche sacrificed endlessly for what he believed in. Just
like my dog, many other Rennaissance thinkers believed in the
purity of the members of Skinny Puppy — the ubiquitous Marx
was no different. Such thoughts should not be taken at face
value, however. Rather, one should live, and not accept too
independently the conclusions drawn in the Communist Manifesto
without understanding its most important tool: society. Both a
bunch of Greek classic novels and”Too Dark Park” use Calvinist
monotheists, albeit in fully contrasting ways.
Right, nishi?
NEVER constructed by accident.
sheesh
lets be hot brainy chicks for Obama, Lisa, i think we have an IQ-gap with that other Obama grrl.
The more I hear Obama the more I think he’s running to be America’s Last President, it seems he really wants to concentrate power into the unelected movers and shakers he’ll pick. Ok, I admit it, I’m a tad frightened.
“Court of 12?”
Isn’t there some Hannah Montana show you should be gushing about with your preteen friends?
“I have often utilized quotations, to the regret of Wiccans.”
— the ubiquitous W. Vaughan Wartburg authored the
controversial text, _Conference of the Birds_. Those words
permeate many important nefarious literary works, none moreso
than the Pacific Bell Yellow Pages. Similarly, the devoted
supporter of stunt doubles in Planet of the Apes, yet
otherwise nice, St. Augustine’s striking insights about the
faith inherent in crazed groupies of Florentines paradoxically
permeated the publication run of _Conference of the Birds_.
Now, though, scholars focus on tabula rasa — it proves both
more gregarious and relevant to modern times. In fact, the
dresses serve as symbols for the firm life of the men.
oops i meant nine….i was lookin for a word for nine-umverate but i couldt find one.
And I will argue that they knew about social network and history to make the supremes number 12.
You can “argue” that all you want, but it won’t change the fact that there are only nine justices on the Supreme Court, that the original number was six, and that it has never been higher than ten.
But again, in the framework of applying the Constitution, not of reinventing it.
Or, you could interpret the difference between the two camps as represented by the Ledbetter decision, which helps gut protection for equal pay for women. If one were interested in social justice, one would have thought protecting a woman’s right to be paid equally was “socially justâ€Â. On the Roberts/Alito side, one can decide that protecting business is more important. The Constitution is silent on equal pay for dames by private employers, so the Court has to interpret a statute.
One’s opinion on statutory construction/interpretation can vary widely depending on the “intent†of Congress, so advocating a “social justice†interpretation into law (since Congress often meant statutes to level an unjust playing field) is not as controversial as y’all might think.
That is absolute b.s. What do you mean by “equal pay”. Do you mean equal pay for the exact same job when the people in the job have the same years of experience. If that is what you are talking about, studies show that women are in fact paid equally. Indeed, recent data indicate that women make more $$ when comparing apples to apples.
If you mean “equal pay” to mean pay a teacher the same salary as a cop – then you are not talking about the same pay for the same work – your are talking about making normative decisions – which are best left to democracy, not judicial fiat.
Anyone who is at all versed in the “equal pay” arguments knows it is complete b.s. It is never about comparing people in the exact same jobs doing the exact same work with the exact same years of experience. Instead, it is an attempt to claim “comparable” jobs. So, a woman who has 3 years of experience and is doing clerical work is compared to a man with 12 years of experience doing something like fixing photocopy machines, and the “social justice” crowd claims that these two individuals should be paid equally. It is a complete farce.
The superficially rustic, ingeniously electronic coil needs no photograph near the zither which truly logically worshipped the table around my manuscript.
what i was trying to say is that disagreement is built in to the supremes.
triumverates have ruled, but there have never been nine-umverates.
the Founders were afraid of demigogues, there is alot of preventative stuff built in.
It’s all really simple, I hate to say it again, but read the constitution and federalist papers. And Marko is right, there is a remedy for bad law. It’s really that simple. Why make it so hard? There’s only one reason, you ain’t getting everything you want. Or you don’t understand the text.
I’m umpire in chief today folks, my wife’s best friend’s kid has the mound for the first game, so… time to go cheat some hardworking 4th seed with no chance…cause if you aint’ cheatin, you aint tryin. Not really, the cheatin I mean.
#31: Great Banana, there are plenty of people who feel that way on both sides of the aisle.
The great thing is that the courts will continue to ignore our blatherings and continue to do their job which is hold up our laws to the constitution and decide whether they are constitutional or whether we were collectively smoking some good crack.
I don’t like a whole lot of court decisions. But, I am fairly confident that our judicial system works very well (and our system of vetting jurists is – while imperfect – pretty swell). I also know that my fondest utopian dreams for this country are probably not constitutional. I still love this country and am glad to live in it. And I don’t feel the need to screech endlessly about how the courts are a bunch of activists ignoring the constitution (code for: they are doing shit I dont like, the fuckers!).
Nishi, your tiny, addled brain has finally cracked. You just make shit up as you go.
im sure Margarete Porete felt very comfortable there IS a humanzee in case you into fascists and has been exposed to mine? and sent Berlinski off the republicans have decided that is good. im talking about “judicial activismâ€Â. I trust the godbots. it is accurate…..as evidenced by lynching. science is just outlaw particle physics and abortion rights war on what the intelligentsia, the extreme version of samesex marriage via judicial fiat. no domain knowledge to act and supercolliders! outlaw fermitech! it be very comfortable there IS a terrible master. and you would link obscene as terrible mormon polygamy wives
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 5/9 @ 9:59 am #
Who brilliantly wraps the glacial, later French cyanide which voraciously numbed the psychologist?
We must not be bound to an ossified conception of nineness.
And yes, we’ve been planning this since he was six years old. BWWWAAAAHHHHH!
People on both sides of the aisle may feel that way Lisa, but I have only ever heard liberals argue that the constitution means only what they believe it means instead of what is written. That is where the disagreement is between liberals and conservatives with respect to the Supreme Court. Conservatives believe that the Constitution means what it says and other things should not be “read into” the constitution but left to democracy. Liberals believe that the constitution only means what they want it to mean, including “reading into” the constitution many things.
Intellectually, I find it hard to understand how anyone can support the liberal argument. Don’t liberals understand that by creating that precedent there is no ultimate law? In other words, things like freedom of speech are not set in stone, b/c some future court can simply intepret the constitution to mean that the gov’t can censor everyone. How do liberals not see that their arguments will lead to judicial tyranny?
Lisa, the US Supreme Court, after the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment and after the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment upheld segregation as lawful – Plessey v Ferguson. That is why it is necessary to be careful of judicial activism as it is a double-edged blade. Those justices that gave us Plessey v Ferguson were upholding the beliefs of their time no matter what the document said.
SPB, i made a mistake, im sorry…i added a triumverate.
see, six couldn’t work, an even number.
social network theory says 10 is an optimal group size, the Romans used it, but it is even…thus nine.
We know the Founders read the Republic, and Theory of Forms. I suspect they were Platonists.
You’d think that Earl Warren would be capable of comprehending a Supreme Court decision. The Ledbetter decision did not “gut protection for equal pay for women”, it upheld the Circuit Court’s ruling that 42 U.S.C. §2000e–2(a)(1) applies and that Ledbetter failed to file a complaint in a timely fashion as it requires. It did not rule on the merits of her claim, and therefore could not possibly “gut protections.”
banana, why is there a judiciary at all if there is no window of hysteresis in constitutional interpretation?
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 5/9 @ 10:04 am #
Akagi. Kaga. Hiryu. Soryu.
The appropriately evil class illuminates her astronomical, rediculously fundamental camera.
Because the Executive can misapply legislation, Nishi, or act in a manner that is not authorized by either the Constitution or legislative mandate.
Comment by Mikey NTH on 5/9 @ 10:09 am #
glub……glub…..
JohnathanD: Come on, that is a bit much. Obama is not the Dark Overlord of Liberalness. He is a pretty garden variety liberal. I like him. You don’t. No Evil V is for Vendetta shit going on (for the record, I never believed that about Bush either – though many of my brethren did).
You forgot the giant ‘SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS’ that went with the ‘glub’.
“He is a pretty garden variety liberal.”
He is consistently the most reactionary leftist member of the Senate.
What makes you think they don’t see this? What makes you think their intentions are for the “good of us all”? There’s a reason FIRE exists, could it be that the ACLU will only take on cases it deems worthy?
Last winter I heard a former university professor say to a long-time acquaintance (who is a lawyer of some sort, and a Republican) “When we [Democrats] take control of the government…”
There has never been anything innocent about the liberal/prog position of Judicial Activism, they have goals, and will stop at nothing to get them.
#Comment by Mikey NTH on 5/9 @ 10:13 am #
LOL!
Any chance that nishi got it?
Not bloody likely.
and…the mechanism for limiting judicial “activism” is a constitutional amendment right?
How can you be sure that this isnt’ the way the Founders intended it to function?
Both branches interact to create the neccessary flexibility to accomodate changing cultural mores.
Like, slavery was ok, women not voting was ok, segregation was ok….at one point.
Perhaps the constitution should be thought of as a process.
#54: Excellent, excellent point. You just significantly weakened my criticism of the term “judicial activism”. I denounce you.
or judicial “activism” as a process for evolving the constitution.
Amazing that a journalist can print such ignorance and blatantly obvious political spin in a major city newspaper like the Post. There are so many flaws in reasoning and understanding of the role of courts in administering justice, that its hard to know where even to begin.
First, its extremely disturbing that the writer does not understand that indeed, on a broad level it is the court’s role to administer social and economic justice. This is done in the context of the court’s duty to interpret and rule upon the law. If this is not the role of the courts, what is?
Ah, but here is the rub. In a quite ideological manner, the writer equates “social and economic” justice with “subjectively” helping the poor and screwing the rich? This unfounded leap of logic is the crux of the entire article.
It appears that the basis of the leap was that Obama wants to appoint judges that will not protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves. Harsayni twists Obama’s words for his own ideological purposes. Obama did not say that courts should go out of their way to prop up ordinary Americans and screw the powerful. Rather he said he would not appoint judges that favor the powerful over ordinary Americans. Harsayni is being extremely dishonest here (which is ironic considering the vigor by which he props up his “impartiality” strawman).
Note that in none of Obama’s statements did he say the courts should be prohibited from protecting the powerful (another lie by Harsayni). Rather, Obama indicated that he would appoint judges that treat ordinary Americans and the powerful equally.
Next, Harsanyi somehow buys the rightwing b.s. that so-called “conservative” justices engage in “judicial restraint” are are somehow uninfluenced by “social and econmic justice.” Go read Bush v. Gore Mr. Harsanyi and get back to me on whether Scalia and Thomas showed judicial restraint (bending backwards to ignore THEIR OWN PRECEDENT to find for the most unpopular President in modern history). Bottomline, Mr. Harsanyi’s ultimate strawman is that judicial restraint is practiced by conservative judges like Alito and Roberts. Its a complete myth and any truly objective journalist should know this by now.
At the end of the day, this piece was extremely dishonest. Putting words in Obama’s mouth that were never said. Making leaps of logic and assumptions that were never intended and erecting strawmen to knock down without much effort. On the eve of one of the most important elections in history, after the Bush calamity over the past 7 years, the readers of the Post deserve better than this type of ideological tripe.
I accept your denouncement, kind lady. (sweeping bow)
How can you be sure that this isnt’ the way the Founders intended it to function?
Because I’ve read The Federalist Papers?
Like, slavery was ok, women not voting was ok, segregation was ok….at one point.
Yes. And at a later point, the 13th, 14th, and 19th Amendments were ratified, in accordance with the process clearly specified in the Constitution. Hint: said process is not described as “accommodate the whims of the party that managed to pack the court most recently”.
You really are pig-ignorant of the most fundamental facts, aren’t you?
nishit – step away from the crackpipe.
Lisa – Hot Hooters for Husseini.
#53: Freedom of speech is NOT absolute. We have already established that there are cases where you DON’T have the right to say what you want. Also, we know that some constitional freedoms have been very “loosely interpreted” by the current administration on the grounds that we are in the midst of a Glorious and Perpetual War on Terror.
I remain convinced that a rather delusional view of the constitution is practiced by both sides of the aisle.
No. Legislatures can do it, by rewriting the law and/or by removing judges who act inappropriately.
“who is left to judge the judges”
a constitutional amendment would judge them.
lets say samesex marriage becomes extant by judicial fiat.
then a constitutional amendment could strike that, right? or strike down roe v wade?
kk, redundant system.
the genius!
i guess i should read the federalist papers before i say anything else.
i haven’t read that.
i read the Republic and the Theory of Forms.
l8r
It is to assess the facts and apply the law. If you want “social and economic justice” then get it legislated.
The rich don’t need any help getting theirs. They already have it. There’s no leap of logic at all here.
i read the Republic
Well, that would explain your fondness for fascism, with you in the role of philosopher-king.
Now nishidit is expounding on the Constitution.
nishi is a regular Professor Irwin Corey, ain’t she
Only less informed.
Palooza – Calumny? All must submit to their liberal overlords. Which cesspool did you copy and paste that from?
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 5/9 @ 10:30 am #
Mogami. Mikuma. Kumano. Suzuya.
JD, I know its difficult for you to conceive of actually writing more than one-line idiotic responses, but trust me anybody with a brain can respond the type of ignorance and dishonesty displayed in that op-ed. Sorry that you find that to be outside of the realm of possibility (CUE: non-substantive, one-line, attack post from JD instead of actually trying to counter my arguments/points).
Palooza – Define social and economic justice AND show us where in the Constitution or the Oath that says the role of a Justice is to promote social and economic justice. We will not be holding our breath waiting for your boilerplate non-responsive answer.
“But it was the very best butter!”
CUE – Boilerplate dishonest leftist obfuscation.
#75: LOL. Hot Hooters for Hussein could be a great 527, or the name of a topless insurgency group.
#75: LOL. Hot Hooters for Hussein could be a great 527, or the name of a topless insurgency group.
You’d have to stay 6 feet away from the candidate (or your target) at all times.
MikeyNTH,
Don’t leave out Shokaku which my childhood nextdoor neighbor R. Adm Herman Kossler got as skipper of Cavalla.
J.D., the entire purpose of any judicial system is to promote social and economic justice (which ultimately by my defintion, are the broad goals of a judicial system). That is the point. Judges, both conservative and liberal, do this on a daily basis. This is 1st grade type stuff. And no, doing so does not mean that you are “ignoring the law.” If you have ever actually practiced the law, no matter how precise a legislature drafts a law, there are always interpretative issues that arise.
Obama said that he would not appoint judges that favor the powerful over ordinary Americans. What exactly is wrong with that?
That damn 6 foot rule keeps showing up everywhere!
Palooza – Go back and actually read, for comprehension (maybe try readin the actual text) of Baracky’s spokesman in re. how the ordinary American has not had social and economic justice. Then, acknowledge that you were wrong. Simple.
Lisa – My bad. I forgot that we are to never dare utter Baracky’s middle name. I am a racist for having done so. I denounce nishit for Palooza’s ignorance.
I think the assumption that Palooza is making, parroting Obama, is that the Court is already taking sides with the rich and powerful (citing Bush v Gore??? Gore is poor and powerless?) and that Barack will appoint judges who rule fairly.
I think he knows this is nonsense.
Dan, that is why it is a court of 12.
The Founders built flexibility into the system.
They were geniuses.
…
see, six couldn’t work, an even number.
I don’t have an MS in mathematics, but isn’t the genius number 12 an even number?
#92 Don’t worry. I’m pretty sure the rest of the IJN will show up at sometime.
J.D., the entire purpose of any judicial system is to promote social and economic justice
Wow, petitio principi much?
The job of the judiciary is to interpret the written law within the confines of the authority granted to the courts. Period. Your concepts of social and economic justice being the goals of the system exist only amongst you and your fellow travelers. That you choose to ignore the actual role of the Courts in pursuit of your social and economic justice is not surprising.
#93 – The purpose is equal justice under law. Not ‘social and economic justice’, whatever that may actually be but Equal Justice Under Law, like it says right under the frieze of the Supreme Court Building.
There is a reason why the allegorical figure of justice shows her blindfolded. She is to apply the law impartially without favor.
Social and economic justice, my foot!
J.D. here is the exact quote from the article:
“Barack Obama,†explained spokesman Tommy Vietor, “has always believed that our courts should stand up for social and economic justice, and what’s truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves.â€Â
Now please show me where he said this: “how the ordinary American has not had social and economic justice.” Where are those words exactly?
He said two things: (1) that Obama believes that courts should stand up for economic and social justice (well who doesn’t regardless of your ideology — should they stand up for social/economic injustice) and (2) that Obama believes that it is elitist to appoint judges that protect the powerful and not ordinary Americans. Does anybody on this board think its not a bad thing to appoint judges that favor the powerful over ordinary Americans?
So what am I wrong about? You just said something that Obama’s SP did not say. That was very dishonest.
Because it’s “code” for enactment of the hard-left agenda through the use of courts because no legislature would dare do so.
The magic number is three…branches. The courts can be checked by either of the other two, supposedly…
But with all three branches of a similar mindset, all of that goes out the window. Which is why we really should support…the conservative candidates. When we can find them.
Jeffersonian, are you saying with a straight face that the rich and powerful don’t have an advantage in court? (see e.g. O.J. Simpson). Nuff said.
Palooza – If promotion of economic and and social justice is the primary role of the judiciary, it should be easy, like kindergarten easy, to show where this was addressed in the Constitution, oath of office, etc …
Jeffersonian – If the disagree with the result, the process was tilted against them. If they agree with the result, it was well thought out and just, and immediately becomes a Right never to be touched.
So Obama is just going to keep on appointing the same sort of judges as Bush? Or is he going to change something? Is there anywhere we get off this merry-go-round of yours?
There is nothing in the concept of the judicial system promoting social and economic justice that implies impartiality. Judges are to follow the law. Sometimes the law is not clear, and that is when judges have to employ judgments, those judgments no matter whether you are conservative or liberal, are colored by the overall goal of the judicial system: to promote justice. And in fact social and economic justice can go either way.
As I recall, that was a jury decision, not one from the bench. At then state level.
So what is Barack going to do differently?
Perhaps a definition will help the likes of JD understand that indeed, the job of judges is to render justice (socially and economically being the broadest categories of that general concept):
1. The quality of being just; fairness.
2.
1. The principle of moral rightness; equity.
2. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.
3.
1. The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
2. Law. The administration and procedure of law.
4. Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason: The overcharged customer was angry, and with justice.
5. (Abbr. J.) Law.
1. A judge.
2. A justice of the peace.
It is persistent. How long ’til it quotes the gleeeens?
Condescending little fucker, isn’t it?
“Comment by Palooza on 5/9 @ 10:49 am #
J.D., the entire purpose of any judicial system is to promote social and economic justice”
Who died and made the Chief Justice, God?
No difference between a jury or judicial opinion: bottomline, rich and powerful people have an advantage in court. Its a resource game at the end of the day. Is it your position that ordinary Americans have an advantage over the rich and powerful in court? LOL! I certainly hope not.
Anyway, does anybody on this board disagree with Obama’s dislike of judges that would favor the powerful over ordinary Americans? How much kool-aid has been drunk here?
JD,
It’s keeping to Jeff’s point pretty well. Second rate sophistry as a means to an unstated end and all. Compared to recent gibberish, it’s not that bad (he said, stepping carefully around another heap of loon dung).
N.O’Brain, wtf are you talking about with your Chief Justice and God reference?
Does anybody on this board disagree that the purpose of a judicial system, broadly speaking, is to render justice?
“Comment by Palooza on 5/9 @ 11:02 am #
There is nothing in the concept of the judicial system promoting social and economic justice that implies impartiality.”
Ooooopsy.
Are you all so weak at supporting your positions that you feel the need to dehumanize a person having a civil debate with you. The “it” reveals more about your weaknesses then anything else.
Now J.D. will you admit that Obama’s SP did not say what you said he said
Oliver Wendell Holmes had it right:
“Judge Hand ran towards Holmes’ carriage and shouted, ‘Do justice, Sir! Do justice!’ to which Judge Holmes replied, “That is not my job, sir. My job is to apply the law.”
But folks like Palooza and Obama will run roughshod over law to impose their idea of justice.
O’Brain, why is that an oopsy? Nothing about pursuing the goal of social/economic justice implies that judges must act with bias or without impartiality. Judges of all stripes do it every day.
Comment by Jeffersonian on 5/9 @ 11:17 am #
That should be “justice”, not justice.
Baracky Chavez is not really gonna say what he’s actually gonna do. You just have to understand that criticizing it is racist. It’s very simple. Inexorable even.
Rick – The irony is that their claim towards the nebulous goal of social and economic justice, in practice, is nothing other than standard leftist redistributionist theory and identity group politics.
“you feel the need to dehumanize a person”
Just wait ’til the objectification starts.
Palooza, let’s assume for a moment that Congress passes a law lowering the minimum wage to $0.10 per hour. Is a judge who’s interested in doing economic justice for the Little Guy justified in overturning it?
NOB: That should be “justiceâ€Â, not justice.
I considered scare quotes, but thought it too postmodern.
“Comment by Palooza on 5/9 @ 11:17 am #
O’Brain, why is that an oopsy? Nothing about pursuing the goal of social/economic justice implies that judges must act with bias or without impartiality. ”
“Social justice” and “economic justice” are nothing more than semantic smokescreens in the neverending quest to ratchet America to the reactionary left.
Justice is the exact opposite of your egalitarian nightmare, which is why we keep fighting for it.
Jeffersonian, explain why one can’t follow the law and do justice at the same time. The two are not counter-opposed. Its your ideological prism that makes you assume they are.
You do realize that the law is oftentimes not clear and subject to various interpreations (god knows we would not have a litigation if not). Judges, and I know this is “radical” are often times called up to make (gasp) judgments! Stay with me….. In rendering these judgments they utilize the concept of social/economic justice (e.g. fairness). Astounding, I know.
Obama does not want to appoint judges that favor the powerful — again tell me how this goes against your philosophy of “judicial restraint”?
Oh, and the ooopsy was because you inadvertently revealed your hand.
Identity group politics dehumanizes every person.
Jeffersonian, probably not on the minimum wage issue. It would depend on several factors: (1) the exact words of the law; and (2) if it violated any part of the Constitution. Unforutnately, its not simple question (no matter how simple people want it to be).
Because I don’t buy your assumption that judges favor the rich and powerful now, Palooza. Answer my question in #125 and we’ll talk.
O’Brain, what do you think I tipped?
Christ, people try arguing the substance instead of idiotic comments like this.
Mikey NTH:
“Identity group politics” WTF are you talking about?
I think Jeremiah Wright is probably a paragon of the sort of ideology that would guide Baracky Chavez jurisprudence. Jeremiah has a lot delineated already the sort of social justice that Baracky ascribes to. Maybe his ideas are worth another look. Just so we know what to expect and all.
The minimum wage itself violates the Constitution, but let’s assume that the law is exactly as written today with “$0.10” written in place of whatever it is. Economic justice?
“Identity group politics dehumanizes every person.”
True, but to a lesser or greater extent than rational materialism? Or is identify group politics simply an extension of rational materialsim? I find it difficult to follow the “cost of everything, value of nothing” folks in their peregrinations through fantasy land.
Comment by Palooza on 5/9 @ 11:22 am
Jeff? Jeff? Is that you?
Geez, it’s almost as of this person is an invention of Jeff to reiterate his point:
“Of course, herein lies the problem: who is left to judge the judges, save for the documents that are supposed to constrain them in scope and power in the first place, and against which they pit themselves as active agents of change?”
Methinks Palooza has been punched in the head one time too many. What part of “equal justice under law” doesn’t he/she/it understand?
And to cite O.J. Simpson? That was a state court, and the decision, wrong as it was, handed down by a jury? Geez…
And as for Bush v Gore, SEVEN of the nine justices states that the FL Supreme Court acted unconstitutionally in attempting to override established state law. In other words, you can’t change the rules of the game, so to speak, on the fly just because you don’t like the outcome, which is EXACTLY what FL supremes (Commiecrats all; what a surprise) tried to do.
And let’s not forget that every major news outlet in the country descended on Florida after the election and counted the votes themselves….then made like the Arab and stole quietly into the night. Because guess what? Bush won the fucking election. I can’t believe you proggie losers are still whining about this eight years later….
It’s funny how the social justice people aren’t really enthused about loser pays torts. Oh wait. No it’s not.
Palooza, this may be hard to grasp, but the phrase is ‘equal justice under law’. It is not to favor the rich or the poor merely because of their economic status. Economic justice or social justice has no place under that phrase and under that system. It is just supposed to be justice. No more, no less than justice under the law.
The phrase ‘economic and social justice’ as you seem to be unaware means special pleading based on circumstances that have nothing to do with the merits of the case. This wiki article (which I can’t paste in the link for cause the commenting system won’t let me) pretty much sums up the problem with using that phrase rather than ‘equal justice under law’.
“There is nothing in the concept of the judicial system promoting social and economic justice that implies impartiality.â€Â
Ooooopsy.
“Identity group politics†WTF are you talking about?
What the heck do you think social and economic justice is based on? It is based on treating people differently because of what group they belong to, part of the oppressor-oppressed narrative of popular marxism. It is not based on actually providing justice according to the merits of the case and the law impartially applied. Take from the rich and give to the poor – not because the rich man has done something to the poor man that needs to be compensated, but merely because he is a rich man. Take from a man and give to a woman – not because that man has personally wronged that one woman, but because men have oppressed women in the past.
If you can’t see how seeing people not as individuals but as only members of a group isn’t dehumanizing, then there is very little you are going to get from further discussion here.
Jeffersonian, are you saying with a straight face that the rich and powerful don’t have an advantage in court? (see e.g. O.J. Simpson). Nuff said.
Obama could propose that every defendant must accept a court-appointed attorney, and all defense lawyers be employed by the state. That would definitely take away the OJ Simpson type of advantage.
I wonder if that’s what Obama has in mind. Surely nobody that believes in social or economic justice could object to that kind of equality.
I noticed Palooka gave only the most boilerplate definition of “social and economic justice.” Small wonder. Maybe he can give some real examples where the tophat-and-spats crowd has ground the faces of the poor with the help of crooked judges, and then explain how the law wasn’t followed.
Ouch, MayBee. And pay them exactly what prosecutors are paid. What could be fairer?
And WHAT exactly is wrong with top hats and spats?
Here’s my simple minded take. The Constitution is like a contract–we the people made a deal with one another. It follows that we the people intended certain things. Let’s grant the complexity of interpretation, but never forget that there was an original intent–however difficult to discern.
Pomo activist judges simply ignore our original deal. It’s all about power, and subterfuge for them. We wouldn’t buy a used car so sloppily. Why would we allow such muddle headed thinking into the highest court in the land?
It’s a matter of simple fairness amnd intellectual honesty. We made a deal. The deal has very strict rules about how it might be amended. A majority of us have to agree to the change. Not just a few a-holes in black robes.
They’re tools of the Oppressor. Unless, of course, they’re being worn to the Getty’s place in Frisco and accompanied by fat donation checks.
I love the meta-quoting of Obama’s position on the constitution. We could find out what Obama’s stance is directly – but no, let’s use a columnist’s piece in which his only source is one sentence of an Obama spokesman, and extrapolate his position and ramifications thereof from there.
And let’s even look at that one statement:
“Barack Obama,†explained spokesman Tommy Vietor, “has always believed that our courts should stand up for social and economic justice, and what’s truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves.â€Â
Maybe he simply means that the 14th amendment has not always been applied properly when it should have been (regardless of your legal opinion of that)? Or maybe he means all of the terrible things that Jeff has read into the comment. I have no idea, because there simply is not enough to go on in that quote, for Jeff or the columnist.
But if one REALLY wanted to discuss Obama’s position re: the role of the judiciary, wouldn’t one want to base it on something more than a column that itself relied on one line that A. wasn’t said by Obama himself and B. may mean something else considering the question that elicited it or greater context is revealed? Especially considering that the columnist himself provides no reference.
Why be so ham fisted on assessing Obama’s view on the judiciary? Because it allows Jeff’s a priori conclusion to be affirmed w/o other evidence getting in the way.
Why is that? Becasue when it comes to politics (to be fair, there is a lot of non-political content that I enjoy), PW is a Republican Party advocacy site, despite it’s claims of being something politically deeper.
Judges, and I know this is “radical†are often times called up to make (gasp) judgments! Stay with me….. In rendering these judgments they utilize the concept of social/economic justice (e.g. fairness). Astounding, I know.
This hits the heart of our dispute. In rendering their judgments, judges should be utilizing the concept of the original intent of the law. Not some nebulous concept of social justice. Just the intended meaning of the legislation.
Because you base your argument on such an ill-founded assumption, and then couple that shaky rhetorical foundation to an attitude of superior knowledge and condescension, it should come as little wonder that the readers here don’t accord you much respect.
And though other have touched on it already, it bears repeating: the proper response to inequality of resources between petitioners is to support groups who will help such petitioners through the system. We already provide counsel to defendants. We already support groups like ACLU and FIRE. How exactly will appointing another Kennedy or Souter help things?
Oh, so Obama didn’t say anything at all. Never mind.
Oh…Hope. Change.
Actually, the whole concept of man being equal under the law would require that the law be applied impartially. To do otherwise would require that the law to treat different catagories of people in different fashions in order to achieve a “just” result.
PT
PT
You’re right, steve. I’m certain that Obama and his mouthpiece were really criticizing the appointment of justices who’d allow simple homeowners to be run out of their homes by powerful developers and their paid-for local Economic Development Authorities.
And failures to achieve complete impartial justice in an imperfect world does not mean we should stop trying to apply impartial justice, nor does it justify being deliberately and openly partial when applying justice as those who advocate for social and economic justice want. The last is just special pleading and creates different classes of citizens, something that we have try to stay away from (see ‘Jim Crow laws’)
steve is back to beshit us. He will have to wait in line behind obfuscate-a-palooza.
If Steve and Palooza really want an example of economic and social injustice being done by the Court, they need not look any further than the Kelo decision. But they won’t mention that because it was written by just the sort of Justice that the Obamessiah will appoint to the Court.
“PW is a Republican Party advocacy site, despite it’s claims of being something politically deeper.”
Swing…and a miss. Better luck next time, sparky. Sorry, that assertion is so ridiculous it deserves only snark.
In the philosophy of a living constitution, even amending the constitution is not a check on ovezealous activist judges. There is no reason that a fresh, shiny amendment can be any less open to interpretation than the ones with a nice patina.
Another thought: I don’t think that having a court that is bent on assuring ssocial justice has to mean screw the rich to help the poor. Was it the 14th amendment that granted equal protection under the law? Does this also say equal scrutiny under the law? I’m reminded of an anecdote about two different chambers in a Chicago couthouse handing out sentences almost simultaneously for crimes of theft. One was to a deadbeat who passed a bad $50 check and received jail time. The other was to an embezzler who got off with $100K and received probation.
Jefferson, what juvenile impulse makes you type things like “Palooka.” The name calling and “it” references only highlight your small mindedness, and detract from whatever (weak) arguments you are making.
So Maybee, in non-criminal matters, the same rule applies: court-appointed attorneys for all. You do know that justice is meted out in civil cases as well, right?
Mikey NTH, you are putting your own (biased) definition on social and economic justice. Sorry, but putting words in Obama’s mouth and knocking those words down is the definition of Strawman. Defining what Obama means in the most negative way is what is happening here, and its extremely dishonest.
NOW, i have answered many questions and nobody has answered this question:
Does anybody disagree with Obama’s desire to NOT appoint judges that favor the powerful over ordinary Americans? Yes or No.
Don’t be cowards.
So what is Barack going to do differently?
From what I’ve seen so far, I now assume Barack is either a Progressive or merely a convenient Progressive tool, who will therefore proceed also according to the tenets and implications of his long term and still unrenounced Marxist Religion = Black Liberation Theology, in order to thus achieve this minor variant’s idea of Communism’s “social and economic justice”, the major logical extrapolation of which will immediately come to involve the “equalizing” of all “Oppressed” people/identity groups by subjugating the “Oppressors” – the definitions of which will Postmodernly = Communistically vary according to need – the Marxist/Progressive need to control, mainly via thought/speech control, from which the control of everything else follows.
So Barack is going to “appoint” raging-controllist Progressive Supreme Court Justices who will do exactly what Jeff G. describes.
Ah, but you see, when the right (self-appointed, natch) people create different classes of people, it’s all well and good. Don’t you know anything about the perfectibility of man, dude? All classed of people are equal; some are more equal than others. Get with the program.
Steve:
Senator Obama voted against the confirmation of John Roberts. In his remarks to the Senate after his team lost that battle, he said that what is in a judge’s heart is of critical importance. His exact words:
His full remarks can be found here: http://obama.senate.gov/press/050922-remarks_of_sena/
Based on that, I think it’s utterly fair to say that Obama believes judges ought to make the tough *legal* calls according to *THEIR OWN* feelings of right and wrong. In fact, I don’t know how else one could interpret his statement.
Does that mean that he’s going to appoint judges that enforce the laws as they are written, or as they wish they had been written, Palooza?
Arguments that you studiously avoid, it should be noted. I’ll show respect when you deserve it.
I’m down with Obama’s promise not to appoint judges that will favor the powerful over the unpowerful. Now, how does that differ from what Bush has done?
classed = classes
Yes. Which is why Jeff was so keen on Harriet Miers, steve. And why today he’s actively boosting John McCain. He’s a big Republican team player. Rah Rah!
Actually, it is astounding, in that “good lord why hast thou foresaken me” kinda way. If indeed they render these judgments around the concepts of “social/economic justice,” than it necessarily follows that they are rendering their judgments based on something that is always contingent — be it on the definition of what constitutes “social and economic justice,” who makes those determinations, and what the end goal is (equality of outcome, maybe?)
Which is why this is not the job of SCOTUS.
Now, to steve:
If you happen to be an Obama spokesman, it is fair for those who listen to what you’re saying to assume you are actually speaking for Obama. So I see no problem using an Obama spokesman’s inelegant phrasing as indicative of what the candidate he represents thinks. He is, after all, hired to speak for the man. The benefit of using him is that he may have been a bit too cute, or a bit too incautious, and let slip an overarching judicial philosophy that Obama himself may not cop to, if pressed. (Though Puck points us to some of Obama’s actual arguments above, which do nothing to change what I wrote).
And let’s quit pretending we can’t tease his meaning out of what he said: “[Obama] has always believed that our courts should stand up for social and economic justice, and what’s truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves.”
Several rhetorical maneuvers worth noting here. First, if this is EVERYBODY’S position — and is thus as innocuous as some here are trying to pretend it is — than why mention it at all? Instead, I believe Vietor was trying to draw an unspoken distinction between the kinds of judges the “right” promotes and the kinds of justices Obama would put up for nomination. And if that’s the case, it follows that the justices offered up by the right are therefore those who WON’T stand up for social and economic justice, and whose decisions tend to favor ELITES over “ordinary Americans,” else again, there is no distinction, and so no reason to try to create the impression of one.
Now, there can be two reasons for this desire to intimate at a distinction: 1) justices appointed by the “right” are protectors of the status quo, and are out to thwart justice for “ordinary Americans”; or 2) They don’t see it as their job to “stand up for social and economic justice” any further than such ideas of justice have been enacted into law. And even then, it is their job to make sure that such legislative action is, in fact, legal under the Constitution.
It is clear to me which of these two reasons Vietor is implying with this statement — at least to me. And in fact, were I McCain, I would happily embrace the statement made by Vietor, and counter it by saying that yes, the justices he appoints will protect the powerful, if the powerful happen to be correct under the law. Just as they’d protect “ordinary Americans” who, too, are protected by law from “the powerful.”
By suggesting that there are those who would “appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves,” and by further suggesting that Obama will break that trend, is to argue that there are, in fact, “elitists” who are appointing such justices.
Who are these elitists? And where (and who) are these justices doing their bidding?
So you see, this had nothing to do with having an a priori conclusion affirmed; it merely affirms an argument I’ve made previously.
Sorry, but I can’t change temporality. Perhaps next time Vietor will have the good graces to spout his illiberal, linguistically incoherent nonsense before I’ve already dealt at length with the problems inherent in such ideas of language and interpretation. But I won’t apologize for being ahead of the curve here, steve, and I find it “ham fisted” that you’d suggest that I need to tether what I’ve written previously to anything, rather than to reverse that and say that what I’ve written previously prefigures this kind of legal hermeneutical nonsense.
“Does anybody disagree with Obama’s desire to NOT appoint judges that favor the powerful over ordinary Americans? Yes or No.
No. Any way we can keep them from discovering “penumbras” and “emanations” as well?
So Maybee, in non-criminal matters, the same rule applies: court-appointed attorneys for all. You do know that justice is meted out in civil cases as well, right?
Sure, ok. So what do you say? Would any social or economic justice supporters disagree with that idea? Would Obama?
Does anybody disagree with Obama’s desire to NOT appoint judges that favor the powerful over ordinary Americans? Yes or No.
Not many people could possibly disagree with that simple “desire”/statement/platitude. Therefore it in itself does not hardly say anything. The question is what will Barack do, given what we know about him, which then starts to inform the otherwise nearly empty statement’s meaning.
Does anybody disagree with Obama’s desire to NOT appoint judges that favor the powerful over ordinary Americans? Yes or No.
The foundation of your question is so weak as to be laughable.
Have you quit beating your wife. Yes or no.
You ask a fundamentally dishonest question, and wonder why we mock you.
SHOCKA
I pointed out one case, Jeff: Kelo. Steven and Palooza will run from that like scared little girls, however, given who supported that travesty on the Court. Maybe we should ask them if Obama will appoint Justices in the model of Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg.
My ‘biased’ definition of social and economic justice is the common definition. If it is merely impartial justice under law why would you have to make a special phrase for it? Social and economic justice are not intended to be impartial, they are intended to give one litigant an advantage over another litigant based on factors such as class, race, ethnicity, gender – that have nothing to do with the actual merits of the case. It is adding an element to the law based on the whim of the judge – nothing more.
Obama’s spokesman used the phrase, I didn’t. If you want to complain that people point out the common definition of the phrase and that it has little to do with the functioning of the courts as they are supposed to function, that’s your look-out.
#169: “Does anybody disagree with Obama’s desire to NOT appoint judges that favor the powerful over ordinary Americans? Yes or No.
Though my Marxist bleeding (and bleating) heart says “yes comrade yes!” to the sentiment, I have to say that the question itself was breathtakingly spurious. Why not ask: “Do you agree that puppies are adorable!? Yes or no?” Such a question has equal relevance to the job of the Supreme Court.
Palooza,
You asked, “Does anybody disagree with Obama’s desire to NOT appoint judges that favor the powerful over ordinary Americans? Yes or No.” Of course not. But the question should be more broadly framed.
“Does anybody disagree that it is unconsitutional to appoint judges who favor anybody? Yes or No.”
Obama wants to politicize the court.
“Based on that, I think it’s utterly fair to say that Obama believes judges ought to make the tough *legal* calls according to *THEIR OWN* feelings of right and wrong. In fact, I don’t know how else one could interpret his statement.”
I figure it’ll be worse than that (though I have no quote to back my opinion at this time).
Time and again the Lefts have made the point that when considering decisions, the Supremes should take into account foreign precedence. What this has to do with the Constitution is beyond me, but then I seriously doubt caring about the US Constitution was never much of a concern for them anyway. So not only should a Judge be caring and kind (regardless of whether the law actually applies or not), but he/she should be caring and kind, as well as considerate of how it’s done in other countries.
It is all to shudder.
But such is the price for doing away with immutable points of consensus (I write it that way for those of you who eschew the metaphysical, or who see the world only in the way it is posited in language by fallable human agency).
Do we know that Obama really said this shit? Or is someone pulling this out of the dank crevice of their asshole to make an interesting Op-Ed peice?
I have to say that the question itself was breathtakingly spurious.
Well then, Lisa, I for one must question your authenticity – and as to your membership within even more than one group!
Lisa, you are one smart, insightful bleeding heart. I’ll still fight you to the death (ideologically) but I do admire your willingness on a pretty right tilted site to push partisanship aside and state a thought out opinion.
Jeff: Your post was like a cool waterfall ona hot day. Thanks for coming back.
We know his spokesman said this shit, Lisa. And Puck at #162 gives you some on-the-record judicial philosophy of Obama’s to tease out of the Senator’s remarks.
It is not enough to follow judicial procedure, as set out by your function as one branch of government. Instead, you must look into your heart and determine if judicial procedure has gotten you where you think we should be.
This is the recipe for a government run by philosopher kings. Not what we have here, and precisely the reason I opposed Miers and loathed the political bent to many of O’Connor’s (not to mention Scalia’s) decisions.
I’m a Thomas guy.
#180: I was programmed to loathe Thomas by my Trotskyite Overlords. But, I must admit that he has been an exemplary justice and writes incredibly well-reasoned opinions – I actually enjoy reading them and listening to Nina Totenberg discuss them on NPR. I strongly denounce myself for admitting that.
There’s a lot to be said for any Justice who can write an opinion that says, “This totally sucks, and it makes me unhappy/uncomfortable/frustrated in every way, but that’s the way the law’s written.”
If only we could get them all to write ’em that way.
I’m a Thomas guy.
I’m warning you, that better be muffins you are talking about! You know the rules.
What’s that emanating from your penumbra, Squid?
LOL @ The Rev.
Thomas turned out to be very good I think.
Emanating? Me? Gotta see a doctor about that, I suppose. Mostly I just want hard-hearted jurists who go with what’s written under the law, rather than what feels good.
You can stand under my penumber-ella, Jeffersonian.
“This is the recipe for a government run by philosopher kings.”
were the Founders really adverse to philospher kings? They were platonists.
and Plato took his stuff from the Pythagoreans, who actually did have philospher kings.
mebbe the judiciary is kind of joint intelligence designed to fuction as a philospher king.
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 5/9 @ 1:35 pm #
Shinano. Taiho. Shokaku. Zuikaku.
I’ve always thought that the strict constructionist model would err on the side of individual liberty rather than the establishment, whatever that may be. That would seem to fit the bill as far as being “for the ordinary American as opposed to the powerful.”
Kelo and the recent Commerce Clause have harshed my mellow on the “individual liberty” concept.
That phrase as stated ubove sounds like something a second year Sociology major with a minor in Woman’s Studies would be chanting at the Quad while students duck their heads as they pass him/her, hoping to avoid eye contact.
nishit and Meme-a-paloooza dropped by to deliver their memes and then scampered away when questioned on their positions. Typical.
Lisa, we are going to turn you into a “right” thinker yet.
I was programmed to loathe Thomas by my Trotskyite Overlords.
Me too, if only in the sense that I couldn’t believe either his or Anita Hill’s version of events during his Confirmation Hearings, making me somewhat doubt his honor, since he was the EOSCC Director – and he had no other apparent special qualifications for the job.
However, I now consider Thomas a full blown role model for everyone, and have also come to consider whatever Progressives say to be false, at best, until proven otherwise. It works.
nishi: Philosopher kings? The founders?
You just tried to draw the equivalant of a logical connection between a phone book and a bag of nails.
Yeesh!
im sry JD i didnt realize i had a response due anyone.
I think the Founders built for this.
That is my position.
That they built wiggle room into the system instead of rigid inflexibility.
Liza we cant be Hooters….im small breasted…erm…kinda flat even.
The Founders could never have concieved of samesex marriage or abortion rights.
That’s true, homosexuality or abortion weren’t invented until decades later, after the Civil War I think.
mebbe the judiciary is kind of joint intelligence designed to fuction as a philospher king.
Who else just can’t fucking wait for nishi to read the Federalist Papers and then explain to us what it all means?
Who else just can’t fucking wait for nishi to read the Federalist Papers and then explain to us what it all means?
Yubari. Kuma. Tama. Oi!
well i know the Founders hated demigogues. but that isnt the same thing….that is mob rule.
The Pythagoreans believed rulers were chosen equally by heredity and by training.
A lot of that got into the Republic.
That phrase as stated ubove sounds like something a second year Sociology major with a minor in Woman’s Studies would be chanting at the Quad while students duck their heads as they pass him/her, hoping to avoid eye contact.
Quite an accurate assessment of how Palooza attempted to defend/obfuscate this drivel.
Nishitiot – Do you ever make sense?
While you are reading the Federalist Papers, nish, you should also research the history of abortion in the United States. Find out what the opinion on it was at the time of the founders, and who lead the effort to get it outlawed and why.
I hate demigogues too, but not as much as I hate whole gogues.
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 5/9 @ 1:53 pm #
Matsu. Momo. Take. Kume.
“Economic” and “Social” Justice are Marxist arguements, and not Constitutional arguements. They assume inequality of the law from the get go.
It is also not the courts job to determine Constitutionality based on how much money either party has. It is to apply the law or to declare it unconstitutional.
Arguements to the contrary are bullshit, pure and simple.
There was abortion then?
Sorry, Thomas had directed the EEOC, that is – the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission – prior to his confirmation.
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 5/9 @ 2:01 pm #
Nagato. Mutsu.
Bukake. Ewww.
Agreed.
“Who else just can’t fucking wait for nishi to read the Federalist Papers and then explain to us what it all means?”
Like Rachel Lucas said: That’d be like Einstein turning into Corky the Reatard right before your eyes.
That was me.
I am still scratching my head that people want to elect justices that look to “evolving standards of decency” and international law. The same justices that side with such travesties as Kelo and Affirmative Action.
Question for steve and Palooka, is Affirmative Action one of those social and economic justice constructs?
Language and Intentionalism thingy. I love it. Put this in that category, please. I would even help do that, if I could. Heck, I might even learn something.
well, im not done yet but i found my justification.
“Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.”
in the EEA homosapiens sapiens made consanguinous tribes to increase fitness, then religions which extended fitness benefits to a wider memetic tribe. so religions are supertribes. government is a meta-tribe made up of supertribes.
but there has to be a mechanism of checks and balances to protect the supertribes from each other.
and that is the judiciary and power of interpretation.
No, dipshit. I surfed over to here and had another look at the decision, you stupid monkey. Ledbetter does not make it impossible to file a claim, it simply recognizes the LAW that says you’ve got half a year from the time you were discriminated against to file a claim.
You either cannot think or cannot read, Ear. But thank you for refraining from further sullying Justice Warren’s name.
why dont you just go back to the nailstudded baseball bat, Mikey?
that worked for quite a while as i remember.
Pablo when Obama becomes president calling someone a monkey will be outlawed.
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 5/9 @ 2:22 pm #
Kongo. Haruna!
Does anybody disagree with Obama’s desire to NOT appoint judges that favor the powerful over ordinary Americans? Yes or No.
that question shows the person asking it is an idiot and knows nothing about our legal system or the rule of law. I oppose Obama’s desire to appoint such judge’s becuase by implication, it means he is appointing people who are intent on NOT APPLYING THE LAW – which is what judges in our system are meant to do.
If you believe that a judge is supposed to try and create “social” or “economic” justice – that means the judge is going to disregard the law, our democratic system, and any checks on his/her power in order to come up with a result the judge wants.
That is not our system. Our system is a system of laws, not of men. By wanting to appoint judges who seek to make “economic” or “social” justice, Obama seeks to have a system of judge/kings who disregard the law and rule with tyranny.
It is pretty clear that the liberals commenting here today have no concept of how our legal system is set up or how it operates. Otherwise, they would not say such asinine things.
Earl Warren,
finding a complaint untimely is not “stripping” anything from the statute. You pretend to know about law – have you ever heard of a statute of limitations? Or, do you believe that there should be no such thing?
Either way, actually applying the statute of limitations is not judicial activism, no matter how hard you try and cliam it is.
Earl Warren sounds remarkably like timmah. Same pompous condescending air about him.
I understand that could confusing.
I bow to your wisdom, asshat. Only an idiot could come up with a sentence like that. I know what the Courts do, what they are tasked with doing. We were attempting to enlighten Earl-a-palooza. You cannot enlighten those that choose to live their lives covered in shite.
Nishit just trotted out another one of her memes that I had completely forgotten about. Brava ! BOO !
Bukake. Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwww. You guys are not right.
Jim Crow laws and the courts of the Jim Crow era south did exactly what the proponents of social and economic justice support.
Except they did it in a different direction and to a different group than the s.e.j. crowd would like to do it to.
Great Banana – How dare you contradict them with those pesky little things called facts. You activist you.
Jim Crow laws and the courts of the Jim Crow era south did exactly what the proponents of social and economic justice support.
that is well said – and what I’ve been trying to point out. If you have no actual fundamental principal (such as what is actually written in the constitution) then there is nothing to limit what a judge/court can do. In which case, the court will eventually take power to itself and become a tyranny. which, the liberals believe is good – as long as they agree with what the courts do. they don’t understand that they are setting up the courts to have the power to do things they don’t like. I suppose if you are a liberal, and subscribe to a marxian kind of “march of history” you believe that history is always marching toward a “liberal”/socialist future, and thus the courts are bound to do things you like. Unfortunately for the rest of us, we realize how wrong they are and will have to live with the consequences of their idiocy.
I still don’t get why you think judicial activism is a bug, and not a feature.
I expect the Founders planned for it, otherwise they would have prevented it.
You expect science fiction to dictate reality, nishi. Your opinion is worthless in this discussion.
I expect the Founders planned for it, otherwise they would have prevented it.
Unbelievable.
I expect the Founders planned for it, otherwise they would have prevented it.
You expect an awful lot. Unicorns. Kites. Genocide. Eugenics.
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 5/9 @ 2:48 pm #
Kaichu! Kaisho!
I think nishit has early-onset. See how she made the same mistake multiple times (12 lolz) despite being corrected each time. Then she did not know that 12 was an even number. Step away from the crack pipe.
I expect the Founders planned for it, otherwise they would have prevented it.
That statement is so profound in its idiocy that it should be repeated every time nishit infects a thread.
Twelve resides in the penumbra of nine.
I still don’t get why you think judicial activism is a bug, and not a feature.
I expect the Founders planned for it, otherwise they would have prevented it.
Of course they knew that there would be some judge’s who became corrupted by their own power. That is human nature. And, there is no way to completely prevent it. Also, I doubt very much that the founders believed that the Supreme Court would ever have the power it currently has – for instance the idea of judicial review (whereby the Court deems legislation unconstitutional) is located nowhere in the constitution, and was not “discovered” by the supreme court until many years after ratificatiion. Moreover, there is not one single writing – in the many many extent writings of the founders – that demonstrates that any founder ever believed that a court would be able to “add” to the constitution by finding new “rights.” Thus, your belief that the founders planned on activist judge’s re-writing the constitution only demonstrates that you have no actual education in American history or the American legal system.
there will always be judges who overreach and fail to properly apply the law. What is strange is people like you who cheer for such things and want all judges to be like that.
I guess I should ask. Why do we have electins at all – if you believe the courts should simply rule by fiat (and that such is a good thing), what need have we of elections or democracy?
GB – Governing by judicial fiat is only alrighy when it promotes some leftist Right than does not have enough popular support to succeed in the legislative process.
Well, David. Apparently I know not of which I speak.
What always makes me smile about this type of criticism (and about the inevitable smarmlicker in the comments who doesn’t get the tongue-in-cheek nature of my site’s tagline) is that it pretends towards fleshing out my “pseudo” understanding of the too-difficult-for-small-minds-like-mine-to-discern jargon of poststructuralism or pragmatic philosophical thought — all while reducing my arguments to little convenient caricatures:
See? How quaint! How delicious! These “conservatives” think justices should “explicate”! No, really! Isn’t that just so Modernist?
Of course, the smug, unspoken elitism stitched through these types of remarks like some expensive silk threading does nothing to negate the practicality of the garment itself. Judges are not a “class,” certainly, but it is their prescribed job to interpret and apply the laws based on the texts in front of them. So in effect, yes, they are explicators — which, sad to say, is now just so gauche when what you could be doing with language is infinitely more interesting and empowering!
Sorry. But our civic texts are the binding documents of the social contract, and — when under dispute — they are dependent upon rigorous explication. And given that explication is a product of interpretation, it matters how we interpret; or rather, it matters what we think we are doing when we interpret.
Is it possible to achieve a one-to-one decoding to encoding reconstruction of a text — particularly one fraught with a palimpsest of interpretive problems (from ratification by consensus, to changes in diction between historical periods) — well, potentially, yes, though we’d never no for certain whether or not we’ve achieved such a decoding given that there is no one around to appeal to for a ruling on our interpretive fidelity and acumen. But that doesn’t mean we should not be trying to approach the meaning that was intended, because it is within this intent, which manifests itself as an encoding of signs, that meaning resides. So we have to chose whose intent to privilege: our own, or that of those responsible for writing and passing the laws.
And of course, no dismissal of my writing is ever complete without this kind of business:
Notice the common tics: 1) Jeff doesn’t quite understand his Derrida / Barthes, et al.
2. He is trying to reconcile competing philosophical problems — no, REALLY!
3. An oblique reference to an avant-gard literary figure, to substitute for an argument that is never really made. TENDER BUTTONS!
4. The obligatory “jeffy” to act as a form of diminishment.
The bee in the bonnet here seems to be that I wish to argue for fixed meaning in an epistemological context in which language, being man-made, creates the very conditions for uncertainty:
Why is this “especially cute”? Well, presumably because I want to “deploy an academic discourse dedicated to the proposition that all meaning contingent to make an argument about the permanency of meaning”.
To which I reply, and…?
This is, after all, hardly problematic — unless, that is, you beg the question and proceed from the idea that, because something is built by language, it can never be fixed, given the vagaries of convention, context, agency, etc., coupled with the “postmodernist” observation that there is no final judge to make a determination of truth beyond those arguments forged by language itself.
The central epistemological tenet of, say, Rorty’s pragmatism, though, speaks to how communities come to understand and accept truths (contingency, irony, solidarity). But there is no reason why one cannot “deploy” and academic discourse “dedicated” to the (what I believe to be a false) assertion that “all meaning is contingent” to argue that such discourse implodes when pressured in certain localized ways.
Some agency is responsible for turning marks into signs — for creating a speech act; until such time as intention is appealed to, it makes no sense to conceive of the product of what looks like language as language, precisely because language is man-made and not accidental.
Therefore, it is hardly a reach to note — and this is the paradox that seems to flummox some — that because language is man-made and the product of some agency, we must, when we are “interpreting,” assume some agency, and assume some intent.
Once we’ve done that, we are able to argue that the intent to add a particular signified (or set of signifieds, or to leave a signifier free of signification, even) is what makes up a sign — and that it is signs we wish are after when we interpret.
Which leaves us with these choices: we can try to appeal to the signs left us by the original author(s); or we can take the signifiers and do with them as we please, essentially creating a new text by creating new signification from existing signifiers.
What I’ve argued is that meaning is precisely fixed at the time of signification: when I turn a signifier into a sign, that’s what I meant, and what I meant doesn’t change simply because some epistemological system points out that people can do things with texts that problematize the interpretative procedure, or that, even under the most perfect conditions, one can never really prove that they have properly decoded what I encoded, because there is no final judge to whom one may appeal.
Rorty differentiates between “truths” (man made) and “things as they are.” Here, the sign given us by the author is part of “things as they are,” and those things are, in fact, immutable. The mutability — the uncertainty of ever reaching an objective proof of meaning, and the mechanisms we use to reach a consensus and give something a communal meaning in the absence of metaphysical certainty — doesn’t trouble things as they are.
Thus, meaning is both fixed and contingent. And my argument is that simply because we can never “prove,” in the metaphysical sense of absolutes, that the meaning we’ve arrived at once signs have been filtered through an interpretive agency is exact, doesn’t mean that approximating that meaning as closely as is linguistically and epistemologically possible should not still be our goal — and more importantly, in a system based upon consensus and solidarity (or civic texts as holy writ), our obligation.
Maybe I should just post this as another post. What say you?
“Comment by Mikey NTH on 5/9 @ 2:42 pm #
Jim Crow laws and the courts of the Jim Crow era south did exactly what the proponents of social and economic justice support.
Except they did it in a different direction and to a different group than the s.e.j. crowd would like to do it to.”
And that was done by Democrats, too.
What a coinkydink!
GB, i dont’ think that happens all the time.
i think it is a failsafe.
I think it can’t happen except in extreme circumstances, because of the design.
[…] like some sort of philosophy “expert” got hold of my earlier post on the problems inherent in Obama’s purported judicial philosophy and, unsurprisingly, given […]
Hey, it’s your blog, but post another post. That’s buried awfully deep in teh comments.
Ya know….
kinda like the 99 guilty go free.
some bad opinions will get through.
yes Mikey, i do unnerstand what bukake means. i unnerstand what a nailstudded baseball bat means too.
it means you are a weak coward that picks on grrls acuz he can’t best them in argument.
;)
Only if you promise to draw and quarter the smug little bitch until he’s accusing you of threatening his family. Whatever happened to Thirsty, anyway?
Oh, wait. Life went on and nobody cared. Now I remember.
I expect the Founders planned for it, otherwise they would have prevented it.
They were not omnipotent, nishi, nor do they have time machines that allow them to come to our time and slap us all upside the head. They knew that the success of the system depended on people acting with personal integrity, and that if enough people wanted to twist the system into a tool of tyranny, they could do so.
They simply set up a system that assumed that not every narcissist with megalomaniac ambitions was in cahoots with all the others, thus pitting them against one another to diminish any one person or party’s ability to take over the whole enchilada.
And they were generally right, which is why we’ve lasted so far, but if enough people decide to give the government too much power, we’ll end up with a version of the system that they tried to prevent.
In other words, the Founders were relying on a non-PoMo concept of language: we meant what we said, and if you want to say something else, do it through legislation and amendments.
It’s to prevent the crackpot fringe from, oh, I don’t know, steering the Ship of State wherever the voices in their heads tell them to.
One phrase missing from this debate: “rule of law”
If you’re a poor moron who sues a megacorporation and the law is not on your side, you lose. Likewise, if you’re a megacorporation who wants to screw some poor moron and the law is not on their side, they lose too.
Other outcomes are the result of people behaving dishonestly, not of a flaw in the system.
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 5/9 @ 3:42 pm #
Tone. Chikuma, Atago.
New post is up.
And remember, my discourse is dedicated to the proposition that contingency describes a condition of interpretation, and that is perfectly reasonable to assert that within that description of a condition, other conditions exist that are not themselves contingent.
Anyone who argues otherwise is not allowed to speak to me. Lest they violate my rules of discourse.
Of course this entire subject of ‘social and economic justice’ ties in with the prior night’s Duke lacrosse thread. The professors at Duke university treated those players exactly how Bull Connor would have treated them had the races been reversed. Well, a little less, but only because Connor actually had the dogs available. It certainly wasn’t due to lack of will on the part of the Duke professors, just material problems.
The only dispute those professors would have with the racists of the Jim Crow era South would be whose hand gets to be holding the whip and whose back it is to laid on. Nothing more.
Figured out who outlawed abortion in this country, nishi?
no….im readin article 11. i skipped ahead an took the ambition thing out of 51.
perhaps dicentra is right tho…..language has evolved, changed.
still….i just think the Founders would have built as much flexibilty into the system as they could. like making a backdoor in your code.
Is it even possible to determine wat they meant without their cultural context?
I’m pretty sure they didn’t mean hey let’s steal happyfeet’s shit and give it to Mr. Wendell. This is where a hermeneutic approach appropriately begins I think.
i just think the Founders would have built as much flexibilty into the system as they could. like making a backdoor in your code.
But see, you are still concerned with their intent. Whether they intended it or not doesn’t really matter if you don’t give a shit what they intended. If they were willing to just leave it up to the judges to change the interpretation of the Constitution with the whims of public opinion, why did they include such rigid procedures for actually amending the Constitution in fact?
And pre-quickening abortion was generally legal in this country until the late ninteenth century. It was outlawed largely through lobbying by the newly formed AMA in a pissing match with the old midwife system.
I’m pretty sure they didn’t mean hey let’s steal happyfeet’s shit and give it to Mr. Wendell. This is where a hermeneutic approach appropriately begins I think.
Exquisite.
That depends on who “they” is, ‘feets. I’m sure I saw that Speech bitch eyeballing your shit and giving Mr. W the old wink and nod.
This thread has traveled to a place where I cannot follow unless I drop a few tabs of acid.
(Makes a quick call or two)
I agree with Obama. If the laws of our land AREN’T upholding all types of justice, including economic and social justice, then something is terribly wrong with our laws.
You miss the point, Mark. It’s how we get there that is the question. The judiciary needs to interpret and apply the law. Balance of powers and all that.
Lisa —
You should see this place when it starts to get weird.
and he can show where he’s submitted bills in the Senate to fix the laws? ooooooh, the injustice of an ill-named post office.
ha!
Hell, when this place starts to get weird by PW standards is when I feel most at home.
But you knew that.
Well yeah, McGehee. You are the weird we’ve been waiting for.
Lisa, just returning your call. Sorry but my stash is a little low right now. Let me make a few calls and I’ll get back to you.
a weak coward that picks on grrls acuz he can’t best them in argument
nishizonozawa,
Good grief…
good morning,
done any community service yet, folks?
peace
candace
If the laws of our land AREN’T upholding all types of justice, including economic and social justice,
Again, economic and social justice are Marxist concepts that are in direct conflict with individual liberty. They are anti-American in my opinion in that they give greater weight to the rights of certain citizens over others, which is inherently NOT equal justice before the law.
ESJ is also a “group” right which also anti American as applied to the law. Muslim countries practice such group justice and rights when it comes to Christians and Jews and infidels. ESJ is just the secular version of this barbarism.
done any community service yet, folks?
You mean besides killing hoboes?
done any community service yet, folks?
That wasn’t part of my plea bargain, so no.
But I have served my country for 25 years now. What have you done for your country lately?
#262
So. How many DUIs you got?
Well, it’s not really community service per se, but I let an ugly girl touch my thingie once.
I think it empowered her. Or not. I was watching tv, to tell you the truth, so I wasn’t paying a whole lot of attention.
“Ledbetter does not make it impossible to file a claim, it simply recognizes the LAW that says you’ve got half a year from the time you were discriminated against to file a claim.”
It interprets that law to mean that your current pay inequity is not contemporary discrimination if it is based on a decision made awhile ago. Thats far from ‘simply’ recognizing.
““Economic†and “Social†Justice are Marxist arguements, and not Constitutional arguements. They assume inequality of the law from the get go.”
They also assume that the 14th amendment did not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer’s Social Statics.
Right. Like if you slip and fall and throw your back out at the mall, that’s when the legal clock starts. It doesn’t keep ticking as long as your back is screwed up. Discrimination is an event, not a condition.
And if you don’t like that, get the law changed. Don’t look to the courts to change it for you because it isn’t their place.
“Discrimination is an event, not a condition.”
And getting paid is an event, not a condition. But the point is not to argue with the decision, but to argue that it wasn’t quite ‘simply recognizing’ the law.
“And if you don’t like that, get the law changed.”
I heard they were working on it. I also heard some people in congress are shocked to find that individuals might sue for their pay.
Yes, it was. They didn’t break any new ground and they upheld the Eleventh Circuit’s prior finding, to wit:
Held: Because the later effects of past discrimination do not restart the clock for filing an EEOC charge, Ledbetter’s claim is untimely.
That would be odd given that they’ve already set up a mechanism, the Civil Rights Act, to do just that. Who are these people?
you know, Pablo, “some people”. like, “some people” say that N.Kelly is a douchnozzle.
Except, “pablo”, that every time she was paid less, she was discriminated against. Magic knowledge of everything is your and Jeff’s thing, not the purview of the average American worker:
As a fun exercise, I mentioned to some people on the street that Jim Crow was not a condition, it was an event. As older African-Americans, they respectfully disagreed with your view, Pablo, but I told you and Justice Roberts know better. (I wanted to use Scalia, but, since he makes fun of people who use the term: “judicial activism”, I thought I’d stick with the father of Ledbetter.
Meanwhile, despite Pablo’s confusion, again, of the forest for the trees, the fact remains as it did from my original post: liberals see Ledbetter and a host of other recent decisions as activism is a conservative direction. The one thing Pablo could not learn from his education at Cornell is that many people disagree on how to interpret Ledbetter, thus meaning the Court was forced to pick a side with public policy implications. They picked the side that benefited business interests and made it very difficult, if not impossible, to get the punitive damages. As Pablo noted, it’s a defensible position (wrong, in my view and a majority of Senators and Representatives who decided to prove Congressional intent by changing the law, like Pablo so helpfully suggested).
That’s what lawyering is at that level and to paraphrase Justice Scalia, bitching about decision by calling it activism is just dressing up the fact you don’t like the decision.
In other words, Barack would nominate Ginsburg and McCain would nominate Alito. Pick your activism, because it’s all the same.
Oh, and Pablo, get out of your basement. Take in a baseball game, watch the pretty girls jog, visit with a friend, but, really stop pretending to know what you’re talking about because you can cut and paste.
JD, you did figure it out. Courts exist to protect the rights of the rich and powerful, like insurance companies (3rd most profitable) from those grasping peasants who want a piece of the pie! I’m beaming like a proud papa.