Will Republicans Capitalize On Sotomayor Nomination?
The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court presents Republicans with a huge opportunity. Sotomayor represents the typical, very left-wing jurist Republicans and conservatives have decried over the years. A nominee who has a record and philosophy of activism, with public statements to back it up (for more on Sotomayor’s record, you can check out Michelle Malkin’s write-up)
When Sotomayor comes before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Republicans should approach the hearings with the intent to educate the American people on the proper constitutional role and function of a judge; that it is NOT their role to legislate from the bench. This is a debate that is long overdue and Republicans ought to embrace it.
Republicans need to, once and for all, put to bed the ideas put forth by the Left that one’s race, gender or economic circumstances in life have any bearing on one’s qualifications for the Court. They need to explain to the American people that the only role of a judge is to fairly apply the law. Justice, as the old adage goes, ought to be blind.
Republicans might not win the battle over Sotomayor’s appointment, but they should at least strive to win in the court of public opinion by convincing the American people of the destructiveness of the judicial activism and the need to return the the kind of constitutional jurisprudence our Founders desired.
Some may cringe at the thought of having a ‘litmus test’ when it comes to judges. However, there are two areas where Republicans ought to have one. First, any potential judge who has a record of activism (read: legislating from the bench) should automatically be disqualified. Likewise any potential judge who has a record of looking to foreign law in their rulings also should be disqualified.
Senate Republicans, particularly those on the Judiciary Committee, will be under considerable pressure to oppose this nominee and advocate for the positions I have outlined above. I can only hope that they will have the backbone to do so.
Mike:
I agree with you that it is important for Senate Republicans to educate the American people of the proper function of a judge. However, at a time when approximately 99% of the actions engaged in by the federal government are not authorized by the constitution, Conservative critiques of “judicial activism” are particularly misguided. Given what is signed into law these days by both parties, I would want a very activist court that strikes down much of the legislation as unconstitutional.
What we need to educate the public about is limited government and that the function of the Court is to say NO when the other branches exceed their constitutional powers.
The problem is that the general public – not to mention the blowhard Republicans on thed Judiciary Committee – have no idea what limited government means. To them, if the public wants it, the public should have it.
Limited government is not unlimited majority rule. In the context of justice before the Court, it means that everyone is treated identically – whether you are rich or poor, white or black. Government has no power to favor one group over any other.
That is what the public needs to hear and learn.
May 26th, 2009 at 4:45 pmShe was appointed to the bench by a REPUBLICAN President…how good will that play if they oppose her now? Not to mention that Hispanics are a HUGE voting block. Personally, I hope they try and stop her nomination. That can only help when election time comes around and the dems need that block of voters.
It would be foolish to do that Mike, but hey, no one says that you guys aren’t foolish! You are your own worst enemy.
May 26th, 2009 at 4:55 pmWhat does it mean to “legislate from the bench”? This is precisely what the role and function of a judge is! Or is there some second secret meaning behind the phrase?
Are you using the term ““legislate from the bench” to mean relaxing old prohibitions and changing and/or updating the language behind the code? Again, this is exactly the role and function of a judge in this country.
If you believe that our laws are etched in stone and impervious to interpretation you are mistaken. In this country we do not have a single authoritative judge; we have a team of them. The number of participants in this team itself is not etched in stone.
You do not want to live in a “World before Columbus”, do you? It is the role and function of a judge to adopt the laws to suit our ever-changing society.
Race, gender and economic circumstances are part of who we are. You can’t deny that.
May 26th, 2009 at 4:59 pmAmbro:
Thanks for reminding us that liberals like to use racial politics. Yes, indeed. Race and ethnicity matter – unless your name is Clarence Thomas or Alberto Gonzales.
Role & Function:
I am talking about judges who ignore the law and rule based on their own policy preferences.
On matters of constitutional and statutory law, judges are not suppsed to legislate from the bench.
May 26th, 2009 at 6:08 pmOh, so you mean like Scalia and Thomas? Please, try and find me one, just one, ruling that Thomas didn’t agree with the activist Scalia. One.
Of course people are going to rule on how they PERCIEVE the law should read. Please, spare me the idiotic “there should be no ideology based rulings” mantra. Again, look to Scalia and Thomas for activist judges. Their rulings are solely based on what they believe to be true. As should all judges.
May 26th, 2009 at 7:15 pmI agree Mike. But, I’m not holding my breath.
May 26th, 2009 at 7:45 pmAmbrosia mindlessly chants the leftist mantra that Scalia and Thomas somehow always agree. Leaving aside that they agree less often than say, Brennan and Marshall did, I respond to his challenge by referring him to Gonzales v. Raich:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html
In that case, Scalia voted to uphold the constitutionality of the Controlled Substances Act as applied to medical marijuana grown for personal use under doctor supervision in a state that had legalized medical marijuana (California). Thomas dissented, noting that the marijuana at issue in that case had never been bought/sold in interstate commerce andhadnever crossed state lines – and that if Congress’ Commerce Clause power erxtended to this activity the enumerated powers doctrine had been completely eviscerated.
May 26th, 2009 at 8:10 pmAmbro:
You couldn’t be more wrong.
First off, your point about Scalia and Thomas is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with liberals who legislate from the bench.
We are not talking about different interpretations of the law. We are talking about IGNORING the law in favor of your own views of what the law should be. That is a HUGE difference.
And I’m afraid I can’t spare you the idea that there should be no ideology based rulings, because that is exactly how it ought to be and exactly what the Founders had in mind.
Liberals just don’t like hearing these inconvenient truths because they like using the court to advance thjeir agenda, particularly when they know their agenda won’t win at the ballot box. See gay marriage.
May 26th, 2009 at 8:43 pmMike P.:
Judges cannot be passive spectators because adjudication is an activity calling for the exercise of careful, objective judgment. Appellate courts’ responsibility is to police the Constitution. By itsnature, this is an active process – just as other police work is.
Furthermore, there are so many subjective (and therefore, improper) laws that it is all but impossible for a judge to not invoke his or her own ideology in deciding a case. Consider some of the laws that courts are called upon to decipher (all of these terms are in actual laws): prohibitions of “unfair” methods of competition, of “predatory” pricing, “predatory” lending, and of a “hostile or offensive work environment;” requirements that manufacturers of certain products provide an “appropriate fair balance” of information about those products; the FCC’s ban on “indecency” on the airwaves in service to the “public interest” (which portions of the public? and which of their interests?). When the laws that judges are handed are written in such subjective, pliable language, it should not surprise anyone that they resort to their own ideologies in determining their rulings.
May 26th, 2009 at 9:29 pmI have worked for many years as a pioneer in the effort to computerize our courts. I have seen all kinds of civil, criminal, and bankruptcy cases, but none of those were as interesting as the cases heard in the appellate courts.
One type of case which came up again and again fell under the hostile or offensive work environment umbrella. Typically these cases would involve an unskilled person performing the most rudimentary work with a glue or paint gun for very little money. These people would be subjected to constant taunts from their co-workers because of their lesbianism, hair lip, or toupee. They complain to their manager but the manager does nothing to rectify the situation.
These are not isolated cases. They happen all the time in every district. I have to wonder why these “victims” don’t simply walk across the street and get another menial job at the next sweat shop. But I suppose when it takes five years to work your way up to $12 an hour you’re reluctant to start all over again at minimum wage…
I am certainly no champion for the unskilled worker. I would not want to see any of my friends or family slack off until they have no other recourse beyond these unskilled jobs, but these managers are responsible for making the work environment safe and hassle free. For all the workers, agreed?
Is there anything subjective (or improper) about these claims?
May 26th, 2009 at 10:20 pmRole & Function:
I don’t agree.
If an employee does not like the work environment, he can leave. He is not entitled to any particular work environment or any particular workplace.
The employer should not be under any onligation to make the “work environment safe and hassle free.” Consenting adults are entitled to choose whatever terms they wish for their work environment. The function of a court is to enforce such contractual terms, not to dictate them (or enforce legislative diktats).
Tortious actions by employers that cause physical injury are a separate category, although depending on the situation the parties should be allowed to decide some of those terms of employment contractually as well, asconsenting adults should be allowed to do.
May 26th, 2009 at 10:34 pmShe will win confirmation easily, take that to the bank (with a majority of Republican votes)! Republican senators don’t have the guts to take the right stand and defeat this radical! WHAT A SHAME!
May 27th, 2009 at 2:55 amMwhahaha! Junior got owned yet AGAIN! When he doesn’t get his ass owned by myself, Ed Mazlish does that job.
Junior, when will you become bored of shooting yourself in the foot?
May 27th, 2009 at 9:52 amThis woman is a communist. THE GREAT OBAMA is revealing just which direction he wants to take this country, and it is not pretty.
May 27th, 2009 at 9:56 amHow do they nominate judges in Poland, Zbiggy?
May 27th, 2009 at 10:10 amA new policy has been instituted to restore a modicum of decorum (at least as far as my IP address is concerned) but the nonsense continues.
Our author writes that justice ought to be blind but I contest “you don’t really want a blind system!” I remind you that before Columbus people thought the world was flat. Our ideas change. If change occurs too radically or quickly the issue is debated before a higher court, and so it goes all the way up to the Supreme Court if necessary. We, as Americans, should be proud of this.
While my comments wait the consensus of our moderator Richard Zuendt is allowed to call Ms. Sotomayor a communist. What evidence does he offer to support this accusation? Ed Mazlish says unabashedly that employer’s are not responsible for providing safe and hassle free environments to their employees. The self-professed anti-Italian weapon enthusiast continues to espouse his hatred. Where is the decorum?
Are these the ideas and attitudes that define America? I hope not. Good luck Ms. Sotomayor, we need some fresh air in this country!
May 27th, 2009 at 10:35 amRole & Function:
Once again, we get another coward hiding behind a really stupid moniker. As far as being a communist, she said at Duke University this “court of appeals is where policy is made.” In other words, you stupid little twit” she says that laws should be made by the courts, not our elected officals. That is exactly what the commies do.
You are right, we do need fresh air, so lets open the window and help her and you outside. Hopefully it will be from a 30 story building. But if that can’t be arranged, and you are so happy with this type of arrangement, why don’t you get yourself a passport and a ticket and get your butt over to North Korea, or Cuba and enjoy the benefits of people like this ruling over you!
May 27th, 2009 at 11:16 amNotice that for all the talk of the need for judges to have “empathy” desired by Obama and people like “Role & Function,” in practice they really mean that anyone deemed to be wealthy, successful, or independent deserves no empathy at all and is fair game to be sacrificed.
The Sotomayor nomination is important because the arbitrary abuse of power by politicians who believe they have a right to dispense of other people’s property is precisely Obama’s modus operandi — and this is what the Supreme Court is called upon to check when I call upon it to be “activist.” What is ominous about this appointment is that Obama is nominating a judge who will vote to give him free reign to shake down AIG executives and Chrysler creditors.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:28 amApparently Role & Function…the moderation of comments is only for the commentators, not the posters. As you can see by the above comment left by Dick Zuendt. As Lonegan proceeds to go down in flames, his comments have become more shrill and uncivil. Yet, I bet you would see a different tune coming from conservatives if they want things legislated from the bench such as having the Ten Commandments on school or government grounds, or having a prayer be allowed in the public schools. I would venture a guess that they would some how come up with an argument that its ok for these things. Or, I bet they would change their stance on an activist judge since they would want the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade even though it has determined that a women’s right to choose is valid and permissable under the 9th and 14th ammendments to our constitution. Hypocrisy at its best.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:24 pmI am pleased to see that your hostility and vitality have not diminished as far as your comprehension skills. It is the role and function of a judge to interpret our written legislation and decide in cases where compliance is questionable. These decisions set precedent. This is the means by which our laws are understood. We cannot enforce laws if we do not understanding them. Our legislators may in fact write legislation but our law enforcement officers are not permitted to interpret them, judges are.
Ms. Sotomayor candidly distinguished the role and function of our legislators and appellate courts in her remarks at Duke University. If you believe that a judge’s interpretation of the law does not shape policy you are mistaken. Why do we have judges at all? (More importantly, the role and function of a jury has raised some hairs too often to count. Do you suggest that we abolish this practice?)
What do you know of the process wherein proposed legislation becomes approved in communist countries? Can you cite any reputable articles on the subject? Can you contribute a credible post that is free of insult and prejudice?
By the way, the reason I do not use my real name is for fear of the brave bravado that you yourself are guilty of. I do not need people like Zbigniex perched in a tree taking aim at Italians in my neighborhood. Thanks anyway.
And yes, what are we going to do next week when Christie gains the candidacy? Many commentators here are surely going to look hypocritical moving forward.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:49 pmambrosiajr:
Yes, I want the Ten Commandments on school and government grounds. This country was founded as a judeo-christian society. Having the Ten Commandments at those places has nothing at all to do with the separation of church and state.
As far as Roe v. Wade, that was once again a bunch of activist judges taking removing the rights of states to govern themselves and imposing their opinion that the federal government should control this. The same thing is going to happen with gay marriage, but at least the California Supreme Court understands state rights.
Now, let us talk about Sotomayer being a racist. Here is her words:
“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice [Sandra Day] O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases…I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Now, just change the word white to black, and your buddy Al Sharpton would be all over this person. It seems that with you, it is alright to slam the constitution as long as your lib buddies get to change this country into a third, world banana republic.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:22 pm“How do they nominate judges in Poland, Zbiggy?”
The President of Poland nominates Polish judges. However, note that unlike the US, Poland does not have a common Supreme Court to try all kinds of cases as a court of last resort. In Poland:
1) The Supreme Court is the court of last resort for criminal cases;
May 27th, 2009 at 1:28 pm2) The Supreme Admin. Court is the highest instance court for administrative and civil litigation;
3) The Constitutional Tribunal decides which laws are compatible with the Constitution, and which aren’t (but takes laws up only if they are referred to the tribunal as unconstitutional);
4) The Tribunal of the State convenes only if the highest ranking state officials are impeached, and tries them.
So, even though it was ruled to be unconstitutional to have a religious object on public grounds, you would want that legislation from the bench. And you don’t see the hypocrisy in that? It was also ruled that a women’s right to choose WAS constitutional under those ammendments cited, you would have that overuled too. How is that not being activist? They were interpreting the constitution, as they should do. It is a fluid document and I feel it was specifically written with that in mind. They were very smart, those founders…and they had foresight.
Also, tell me you can know what it was like to grow up latino, female and poor in Brooklyn and I’ll grant your argument against the latino woman vs. white male. Why does that life experience have to be discounted when rendering judgement? Hell, even your good friend Mazlish sees the foolishness of your “no life experience needed for a judge’s ruling” argument.
But getting back to my original statement, I hope republicans oppose her vehemently since it will linger in the minds of that huge block of voters and can only help us in 2010.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:03 pmJust as there is a difference between negative rights that say what cannot be done to you and positive rights that force others to do things for you, there is a similar distinction between judicial activism that tells the legislative and executive branches what they can do and judicial activism that tells the other branches what they must do.
One of the most important functions of an independent judiciary is to say “NO!” to the other branches of government when they violate your rights. It is not a proper function of the judiciary to tell the other branches what policies to implement. Nor is it a proper function of the judiciary to fill in the gaps left by the legislature when it refused to make tough choices in passing a bill. The judiciary’s most important job is to use judicial review to police the legislative and executive branches from acting outside the scope of their constitutional authority.
To the extent that the elected branches of government pass vague laws and delegate the interpretations of those laws to independent agencies, or worse, to the courts, those other branches have acted inappropriately. It should not be for a judge (or a bureaucrat) to figure out and interpret a law: it is up to the legislature to pass clear, objective laws that are comprehensible, so that the judiciary is left to its proper role of applying that law to a particular factual circumstance. It should not be for a judge to sort out what the legislature and executive meant when a bill was passed and signed into law.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:16 pmZbigot is a complete disgrace.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:28 pmAmbrosia:
Don’t put words into my mouth.
A judge should not decide cases based on such irrelevant facts as gender, race or background. Whether we are discussing the litigants or the judge does not matter. The empathy you and Judge Sotomayor’s supporters advocate judges use in deciding cases effectively repeals the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of Equal Protection of the laws. We fought a Civil War in order to get the 14th Amendment enacted – I do not want to see it repealed based on the life experience of some judge.
Furthermore, just because technology advances in ways unforeseen and/or unknown the Founders does not mean the fundamental principles they laid down are malleable. They are not. The First Amendment applies equally to printed documents as it does to broadcast – and internet – media. Or at least it should.
If the Constitution were as “fluid” as you say it is, it would be flushed down the toilet.
May 27th, 2009 at 3:31 pmZuendt,
Please don’t exacerbate us with your claim that we were founded as a Judeo-Christian society. There is simply no truth to that. First of all, while the original European settlers were indeed Christian, they were radical Christians intolerant of Jews, Catholics, and the Church of England. They came here to build the New Jerusalem (Jews were not welcome) and wait for the rapture. A hundred and fifty years later a more educated people fought for and founded this country. These people were more interested in John Locke than Jesus.
At any rate, do not forget the twenty-five million native inhabitants they slaughtered. Entire Indian Nations completely disappeared and there is not a single holocaust memorial in their honor! Judeo-Christian society indeed!!!
May 27th, 2009 at 3:38 pmambrosiajr:
Life experience has nothing to do with being a supreme court justice. The Consitution is NOT a fluid document. The Constitution sets forth certain terms and conditions for governing, period! If one makes it a “living” document it just becomes nothing but a piece of paper that can be interpreted any way the justices on the court at that time would like, and thereby become nothing more than a tribunal for the country. The legislature would no longer create the laws, the Supreme Court would. We could do away with elections and president and just get a caretaker to live in the White House.
What does living in Brooklyn (by the way, she grew up in the Bronx) have to do with the law of the land and interpreting the Constitution? If that is your logic, how about the folks who live in the mid-west on farms? How about folks who live in Montana on ranches? How about folks who live on the shores of Maine or Oregon and fish for a livelihood? How about that life experience? How about justices who have not attended an ivy league school, but are graduates of the University of Iowa, or Alabama, or Utah?
The logic of appointing a justice because she is a woman, or hispanic, is just foolish. A new justice should be the best person possible, who will interpret the Constitution for what is truely is, a piece of paper that sets the rules for how the country should be run, not will be run.
One last thing, having a religious object on public grounds is not unconstitutional! The whole purpose of separation of church and state was to prevent the establishment of a “National” religion like that which was then in place in England at the time the constitution was written, and is best reflected today by the Islamic countries. Just because the Warren court ruled that way in the sixties does not make it right.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:01 pm“The President of Poland nominates Polish judges.”
Well, I wouldn’t think he would nominate British judges Zbiggy…
I know there’s a joke in there somewhere……
May 27th, 2009 at 4:05 pmThat’s my point Dick…life experience counts, no matter where you’re from. And, if you have a religious object on public grounds, it can be percieved to be an endoresment of that religion. That is not what this country is about, nor was it the intent of the founders, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. You are free to worship wherever and to whomever you choose without infringement on others. Some may take offense at having the ten commandments by, say, a courthouse. Some judges may adjudicate by their religious beliefs, and the ten commandments could influence their rulings. That would be wrong, would it not? Would you want prayer on public school grounds? Or teaching creationism instead of the theory of evolution? Or maybe that the world was created only a little over 6000 years ago as some fundamentalists believe. You see where this is going Dick? You want activist judges, but you just can’t admit it. Well, so do we. And again, its foolish to think that judges don’t take into life experience when they make their rulings.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:43 pmAlso Dick…you’re partly wrong on the Ten Commandments…for some purposes, it is unconstitutional to display, but as long as there are other religious symbols, then its ok.
Supreme Court Rules on Ten Commandments Displays
Washington, DC – A closely divided Supreme Court today issued two decisions on the legality of Ten Commandments displays in public buildings and on public property. The court struck down the Decalogue displays in two Kentucky courthouses but upheld the constitutionality of a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas state capitol building.
In the Kentucky case, McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union, the court ruled 5-4 that the placement of Ten Commandments displays in two county courthouses was an example of the government acting “with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion,” and thus was a violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.
The decision in the second case, Van Orden v. Perry, was also 5-4, with Justice Breyer joining the conservatives in support of the Texas Monuments. Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the majority, defended the placement of the monument, which has been on the Capitol grounds since 1961.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:48 pmOur system of jurisprudence is flexible, not fluid. Changes do not happen overnight! But they do (and should) happen!
“A judge should not decide cases based on such irrelevant facts as gender, race or background”
That is a very interesting statement, Mr. Mazlish. I didn’t know you supported same-sex marriage! Well, good for you!
May 27th, 2009 at 5:26 pmjr.
Life experience should count for nothing when it comes to interpreting the constitution, that was my point. What does being a female hispanic have to do with interpreting the constitution as the founders expect it to be interpreted? Nothing!
As far as the Ten Commandments, I really don’t give a crap what all of those decisions were, because they are all wrong! Here, read the amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Establishment of a religion! Establishment is not the Ten Commandments hanging up somewhere, or a Menora, or a Christmas Tree. That is how screwed up all of those liberal justices are! They can’t even read the constitution, let alone interpret it.
Hey, remember, it is Mr. Big Dick to you!
May 27th, 2009 at 7:19 pm“Well, I wouldn’t think he would nominate British judges Zbiggy.”
Junior, this was written for Dino, for the sake of clarity.
As for your ridiculous accusations of hypocrisy and judicial activism, they have proven that you know nothing about your country’s laws.
Judicial activism is, AFAIC, the judges’ trend to “legislate from the bench”, that is, make decisions that are reserved for legislatures (e.g. the Congress) to make. For example, they legislate new “rights” from the bench.
Overturning the rulings which are examples of judicial activism is NOT judicial activism nor legislating from the bench. It is only a correction of the mistakes made by activist judges.
There is no right to abortion (or “choice”) in the US Constitution; properly interpreted, the supreme law of the US is silent on that issue. Hence, the issue shall be decided by the means of the ordinary democratic political process.
If the US Constitution speaks on an issue, it has the final word on that issue. But on issues on which it is silent, the issue is up for legislatures (or voters) to decide.
The same two principles apply to every other country that has a constitution.
The ruling that displaying the Ten Commandments for non-religious purposes is also wrong.
May 28th, 2009 at 1:13 amYes, apparently Mr. Ambrosia thinks the 9 lawyers in black robes are infallible.
Moreover, he displays quite a bit of convoluted logic. Roe v. Wade, for example, is widely acknowledge to be a bad decision and an example of judicial activism. it matters not what the wrong-headed judges pointed to to justify their ruling. The point is quite simple: abortion is not a right. There is no clause in the constitution saying as much. In Texas, where Roe was from, it was illegal. Thus, there was no basis for the decision.
But Ambro would then have us believe overturning Roe v. Wade is judicial activism instead of simply reversing a bad decision.
Further, Mr. Ambro also fails to see the key clause in the 1st Amendment – “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” If the Founders didn’t want religion in the public square they would have said so quite clearly in the constitution. rather, they quite explicitly said the opposite.
“Church” and “State” are institutions, Mr. Ambro. The establishment clause is aimed at preventing the government from having a state religion. However, many liberals – to be frank – have perverted this to suit their secularist agenda. There is an elment of the Left that simply wants religion to be out of the public square completely. We see this all the time, whether it be things like removing the Ten Commandments from government buildings or just forcing schools to not use the word “Holiday” instead of “Christmas.”
But again, in cases like these where the court has – not just misinterpreted the constitution – but turned it on its head, Mr. Ambro still thinks the decisions by the 9 lawyers are not to be questioned or deemed plainly wrong.
As for life experience, that should be no means used as a qualification. Heck, by that logic we should take some of the Jerry Springer guests who have had a ‘tough life’ and ‘compelling stories’ and throw them on the bench.
Last but not least — Mr. Ambro is gleeful with the thought of Republicans opposing this nominee. You see, he likes the idea of using race as a wedge issue. After all that’s why Obama picked this nominee – her race and her gender (just like MLK would have wanted for our country, eh?).
He thinks Hispanics are stupid. He doesn’t think they are smart enought to understand the issue and that Republicans would be well within their rights to oppose her based on her record and their views on what a judge should be. That, my friends, is a truly racist POV – as well as a very divisive one.
May 28th, 2009 at 1:34 amMike P. and Zbigniew:
Zbigniew wrote:
“There is no right to abortion (or “choice”) in the US Constitution; properly interpreted, the supreme law of the US is silent on that issue. Hence, the issue shall be decided by the means of the ordinary democratic political process.”
Mike P. wrote:
“The point is quite simple: abortion is not a right. There is no clause in the constitution saying as much. In Texas, where Roe was from, it was illegal. Thus, there was no basis for the decision.”
I do not want to have a debate on the constitutionality of abortion. Rather, I point to this as a reason why a judge’s ideology necessarily comes into play in judicial decision making. The reason we need a Supreme Court is that someone has to apply the Constitution, not just to the cases where its meaning is obvious, but to new and unusual cases that could not have been anticipated by the document’s framers, and to grey areas and “borderline cases” on which America’s Founders articulated no definitive view. At the time of the founding, medical science had not yet made abortion into a commonly available, relatively safe procedure. Since the Constitution is silent on this issue specifically (though the Ninth Amendment speaks indirectly to rights not enumerated), therefore, the Supreme Court must decide whether and how the Constitution’s guarantees of liberty apply to it.
Some cases require, not the direct application of the plain words of the Constitution, but an extension of constitutional principles to new cases. The problem is in how you look at the meaning of words – and the meaning of the concepts they represent. This is where the ideological beliefs of a judge are crucial.
Liberals want to grant the Courts unlimited power. This is wrong and contrary to the Constitution. But Conservative calls for judicial deference to legislatures amounts to a grant of unlimited power to legislatures. This is also contrary to the Constitution. The Constitution sets up a framework of limited government designed to protect individual liberty from government encroachment. A proper judicial philosophy is guided by those principles. In this way, new cases that were not and couldnot have been anticipated by the Founders – whether abortion, or the applicability of the First Amendment to broadcast and internet media – can bedecided according to constitutional principles rather than thewhims of a majority whether represented in the legislature or on theCourt/
May 28th, 2009 at 8:00 amMazlish, that was a thoughtful and to the point post.
May 28th, 2009 at 8:45 amI do not believe liberals want to grant the courts unlimited power. How have you arrived at this supposition Mr. Mazlish? Both liberals and conservatives decry “legislating from the bench” unless, of course, the decisions are agreeable to them! There is no concentrated opposition to our court system in either camp; just controversy over particular nominees. That’s the way it always works. Judges are not infallible. They are not Popes.
I would like to remind the readers the Row vs. Wade is not about the “right to have an abortion” at all. It is about privacy. Essentially, the court decided that the laws banning abortion were inconsistent with our constitutional right to privacy. There is nothing “judicially activist” about preserving a constitutional right.
May 28th, 2009 at 11:14 amRole & Function:
The whole notion of a “living constitution” that changes with the times reflects the Left’s desire to grant the Courts unlimited power. So is your call for judges to legislate from the bench. Under that (non-)standard, what are the limits on the Court’s power to “legislate?” Only what the judges feel is right under “contmeporary standards.” This is a grant of unlimited power whether you want to admit it or not.
The purpose of the American Constitution was to enumerate a specific and limited grant of powers to the government. It was not to enumerate rights to the people. As the Declaration of Independence states, individuals have rights prior to the formation of government, and “that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” The Constitution does enumerate some rights, not as a means of “creating” those rights but to make clear that even if the government otherwise exercises a legitimate power, the rights of the people trump the grant of power to the government. For example, Artlicle I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to lay and collect taxes – so the Free Speech guarantees were included in the First Amendment in order to make clear that a windfall profits tax on newspapers, while ostensibly authorized by Article I, Section 8, was not a permissible way to smuggle censorship into America.
As I mentioned previously, judges are required to interpret and apply the actual words and concepts used in the text of the Constitution to new and unforseen cases that did not exist at the time of the Founding. This is not a license for judges to decide any way that they please so long as they invoke some contemporary community standard, whether domestic or foreign. Rather, it means that judges must look to the actual words of the Constitution and decide if, through a process of reason, the new case properly fits within the meaning of the actual words used. I will illustrate with an example.
The words “Fairness Doctrine,” “radio,” “television” and “FCC” nowhere appear in the text of the Constitution. If this Congress passes a law that President Obama signs which empowers the FCC to impose the “Fairness Doctrine” so that liberal speakers are allowed “equal time” on conserevative radio stations, how is a court to decide that based only on the words contained in the text of the Constitution, given that those words do not appear in the Constitution itself? It is my position that it is not the Court’s function to rubber stamp the decision of the two elected branches that enacted that law. Rather, it is my position that it for the Court to read the First Amendment and determine whether conservative talk radio constitutes “speech” and whether the Fairness Doctrine “abridges” that speech. I believe that it is proper that a Court *actively* strike down that law, even if all 60 current Democratic Senators and President Obama vote in favor of that law, because that law would contravene the spirit and intent of the First Amendment even though it might not violate the actual text of the Amendment.
However, it would also be inappropriate for the Court to, on its own, issue an order effectively implementing a “Fairness Doctrine” on its own accord without t he elected branches even if the Court thinks that Leftist voices are not as prevalent on the radio. It is not the Court’s function to tell the elected branches what to do, it is the Court’s role to say when the elected branches have exceeded their constitutional authority.
It is not the Court’s role to “legislate” even though its rulings and precedents carry the force of law.
May 28th, 2009 at 11:57 amMr. Ambrosia:
Thank you.
May 28th, 2009 at 11:58 amMr. Mazlish, your valiant attempt to persuade echoes the absolute uncompromising character of an Islamic Cleric. You are not alone in your admiration of our constitution and praise of the framers’ intent. But at the end of the day you are talking about a piece of paper. Get over it. The framers never imagined that splitting an atom could unleash a force powerful enough to destroy a city. They could only dream of flying or instantaneous global communication. The people that wrote the second amendment were fighting an enemy that moved slowly between two continents. They weren’t concerned about crack heads with semi automatics.
Yes, we the people have our inalienable rights, many of which we haven’t even discovered yet! Our country has existed for barely a quarter of a millennium. If we wish to exist for yet another we had better accept the idea of a “living constitution”.
Sparta’s defeat of Athens marked the end of the most magnificent epoch in the history of the world. But what became of the Spartans? They are alive and with us today. We call them twenty-first century conservatives.
May 28th, 2009 at 12:58 pmThere is no such thing as a constitutional right to privacy in the US. Such a right is not mentioned in the US Constitution and therefore is not a constitutional right. Period.
May 28th, 2009 at 1:23 pmRole & Function:
A piece of paper? What are you, a communist? That piece of paper is the only thing that stands between us and being dominated by tyrants, dictators and despots. What do you think all of the patriots who have given their lives and limbs did it for? They did it for that piece of paper and the flag that represents that piece of paper!
How dare you ever use the words “a piece of paper” to describe the most important ideals ever developed by mankind. For free men and women, that paper represents all of their dreams for a future of freedom. That is why people are willing to risk all to get to this country. That piece of paper puts fear into the hearts of people who wish to enslave their populations. No sir, that is not “a piece of paper”, it is rather a covenant with mankind that their existent will be one of hope and freedom.
Maybe the founders could not forsee may of the advances that mankind would make, but they sure as hell knew one thing, less government is better than more. Freedom to succeed and fail on one’s own terms is better than a life of servitude to a person or government. One can never accept the idea of a “living constitution” since that will open the door for the destruction of the very thing the founders wished to present to future generation, hope of a better life for them and their offspring.
May 28th, 2009 at 1:26 pmZbigniew:
The Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution reads in its entirety as follows:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The text of the US Constitution explicitly rejects your contention that there is no constitutional right to privacy because it is not mentioned in the constitution itself.
May 28th, 2009 at 1:51 pmThe US Constitution’s provisions are like conservative principles – they are eternal and do not need to be adapted to any era because they work well during every historical period.
The world is different now than it was 200 years ago but that doesn’t change the fact that the text of the constitution has not changed since 1992, and the fact that the US Constitution’s provisions have proven themselves to be correct during EVERY historical period. I call this “period-flexibility”.
May 28th, 2009 at 1:52 pmMr. Zuendt,
You, sir, are dangerously delusional. If you showed the real world and its real inhabitants only a fraction of the admiration and devotion that you award a piece of paper you would be a much better human being! It is the ideas expressed that are important, not the silly parchment.
Why did our great generation storm the beaches of Normandy? I’m sure many of them would tell you a variety of really good reasons, and I bet you flags and pieces of paper (and greed) would not be among them.
If you are going to try to take me down a peg you had better use some logical devices like reasoning and facts. Otherwise if you’re going to get your panties all tied in a knot over flags and pieces of paper you’re going to come off like John Wayne performing Man a La Mancha. Patriotism, that’s a good one! The Nazis were patriots too! They were perhaps some of the most patriotic fellows you’d ever want to meet!!!
May 28th, 2009 at 2:09 pmA ‘living, breathing constitution’ basically means no constitution. It means we can bend it, twist it and shape it into anything we want. It might as well not even exist.
The Founders certainly could not have foreseen the changes to come, but they were smart enough to make the constitution AMENDABLE. We can change it if we want and have done so numerous times throughout our history. That is the proper way to bring our constitution up-to-date, not to take everything else it says and flush it down the toilet.
May 28th, 2009 at 2:14 pm“Amendable” “Change” “Flexible” “Living Breathing”…
Six of one, half dozen of another…
To say that a thing may as well be flushed down the toilet because it is “living breathing”, “flexible”, or “Amendable” is neither reasonable nor rational.
This conversation has deteriorated into patriotic fervor and zealously unworthy of conservative or liberal principles. Good day to you!
May 28th, 2009 at 2:45 pmRole & Function:
No sir, you are the dangerous one. You will not use your real name, but hide like a coward behind a stupid moniker. You would be the one that would hide behind the bodies of patriots as they defend your liberty, only to rise up like a piece of slime to claim that your rights must now be observed after the battle. No sir, you and your type are the reason that this country is on the road to socialism, lead by THE GREAT OBAMA.
Mike:
I agree on the amendable portion of your argument, which is great, but I do disagree on the use of numerous. The constitution has had only 27 admendments, and two of those were to negate each other. 10 of those admendments were in the bill of rights, which the founding fathers used to define particular rights of the individual and states. Therefore, in over 220 years, we have had to add to the constitution only 15 true admendments. Less than one every 44 years. No, the constitution is not perfect, but it is as perfect a document that man can create.
May 28th, 2009 at 2:52 pmZuendt,
My real name is Donald. Donald Williams. I live in Atlantic County. I am 56 years old. I’ve been married for 23 years and have two children in college. I was in the Air Force but I did not see combat.
Does that change anything? Of course not! My name is about as important as a flag or a piece of paper.
You are shallow little man because you are concerned with things like names, flags, and pieces of paper. You do not see beyond the superficial! You are not worthy of conversation.
So goodbye.
(PS If I see you in my neighborhood I will sign a complaint)
May 28th, 2009 at 3:43 pmWilliams:
I am 57 and live in Bergen County. I have been married 28 years and have 3 boys, one in college, two graduated already.
Your name is important, because now you are a person, not a silly moniker. As far as being shallow, if you name is as unimportant as our flag and constitution, I do truly feel sorry for you. Your opinion is worth nothing, since even you name means anything to you.
Not to have to deal with a person of such shallow moral character and intelligence will serve me fine. I do hope you have a good life, safe in the knowledge that others will be protecting you precious rights as you try the hardest to deprive others of theirs.
May 28th, 2009 at 4:50 pmZuendt,
What is your problem? You seem bent on accusing me of the most horrific things and why? Because I believe that our constitution should be adaptable? What is the crime in that? Everybody, including you, acknowledges this. I never suggested that we “take everything else it says and flush it down the toilet” (as Mr. Proto suggested for reasons unknown). I never said that we should change our laws without debate and careful consideration. I only suggested that perhaps the framers may not have foreseen the consequences of or omissions in their work. Why are you so hostile?
Where do you get the impression that I “try the hardest to deprive” others while expecting someone else to protect me? That is unsubstantiated nonsense. You call me a twit and say that I am a communist! Where is that citation I asked for explaining how laws are passed in communists counties? Do you know what you’re talking about or are you just an animal trying to mark its territory?
I work hard and am active in my community. I am not ashamed of my name. But I prize my anonymity as well. I do not have illusions about who I am. If you are so concerned about identity and the self you should read a book on eastern philosophy. What is the importance of a name? Who exactly do you think you are? I’m afraid you’ve got a big Christmas morning surprise awaiting you Richard Zuendt.
I stand by what I say, chiefly, you are a shallow man. Judeo-Christian indeed! You’re just a trouble maker. Are you happy now? Do you feel the need to accuse me of more unsubstantiated depraved behavior unbecoming of an American? I’m trying to engage in intelligent debate and all you have to say is “red white & blue” and “na na na na na”??? Where are we, the Boy Scouts???
May 28th, 2009 at 5:50 pmWilliams:
Your an idiot! You think that the constitution is just a piece of paper and I am suppose to agree with a trash opinion like that. Are you off of your meds today? You think that it should be changed on a whim, just to suit what you feel is right, even though it could deprive others their rights. What you call adaptable, is nothing less than a socialist system to control the citizens of this country. The constitution was never meant to be changed by a judge, but only by an overwhelming majority of the people. You might think about taking a course in civics and another in history to understand just what this country is based on. Better yet, switch from watching the cartoon channel and take a look at the history channel instead.
I am also active in my community, so what does that have to do with anything. If you want to have anonymity, fine, but don’t tell me that I should respect a person who hides behind a stupid moniker instead of taking credit for the trash he espouses.
As far as what you are, one can only judge you by the delusions you pontificate here. You give the word superficial another meaning entirely in both your ideas and beliefs that you write about here. Intelligent debate, I would have better chance of that talking to your dog instead of you.
May 28th, 2009 at 6:41 pm“This country was founded as a judeo-christian society”
-Richard Zuendt May 27th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
I think somebody might want to heed their own advice and tune in the History Channel! (But by his own admittance that person would be better off having a conversation with a dog.)
May 28th, 2009 at 7:15 pmDick “Idoit” Zuendt,
Remember it’s “You’re and idiot“, not “Your an idiot“!!! Otherwise that was almost a good post. Did somebody else write it for you?
Unfortunately your work only merits a D. First of all the accusation that your adversary believes the constitution should be changed on a whim was unfounded. This idea was never expressed by anybody participating in the conversation. I had to deduct points for your bad comprehension skills.
Secondly, you need to be more careful about where you place commas. “What you call adaptable, is nothing less…”; no need for a pause there!
You almost redeem yourself with the line about the Cartoon Network but the subsequent use of “espouses” and “pontificate” detracts the fluidity of your speech. (You wouldn’t want to be accused of elitism now would you?)
“…you give the word superficial another meaning entirely…” Bravo! Good for you! You managed to insult somebody without making a complete ass of yourself!
Here is another tip: “I am suppose to agree” should read “I am supposed to agree”. It is not important that you agree; debate is all about point and counterpoint.
Try developing those comprehension skills Dick. With a little effort you might even get a B next time!
Sincerely,
May 28th, 2009 at 10:06 pmEdna Crabapple
Jack Meoff:
Alexis de Tocqueville reference to both old and new testaments in “Democracy in America”.
“The principles of New England … now extend their influence beyond its limits, over the whole American world. The civilization of New England has been like a beacon lit upon a hill…. … Puritanism was not merely a religious doctrine, but corresponded in many points with the most absolute democratic and republican theories. …Nathaniel Morton, the historian of the first years of the settlement, thus opens his subject: “we may not hide from our children, showing to the generations to come the praises of the Lord; that especially the seed of Abraham his servant, and the children of Jacob his chosen ( Psalm cv. 5, 6 ), may remember his marvellous works in the beginning … “ … The general principles which are the groundwork of modern constitutions, principles … were all recognized and established by the laws of New England: the intervention of the people in public affairs, the free voting of taxes, the responsibility of the agents of power, personal liberty, and trial by jury were all positively established without discussion. … In the bosom of this obscure democracy…the following fine definition of liberty: ” There is a twofold liberty, natural … and civil or federal. The first is common to man with beasts and other creatures. By this, man, as he stands in relation to man simply, hath liberty to do what he lists; it is a liberty to evil as well as to good. … The exercise and maintaining of this liberty makes men grow more evil, and in time to be worse than brute beasts: … The other kind of liberty I call civil or federal; it may also be termed moral, in reference to the covenant between God and man, in the moral law, and the politic covenants and constitutions, among men themselves. … This liberty you are to stand for, with the hazard not only of your goods, but of your lives, if need be.” I have said enough to put the character of Anglo-American civilization in its true light. It is the result ( and this should be constantly kept in mind) of two distinct elements, which in other places have been in frequent disagreement, but which the Americans have succeeded in incorporating to some extent one with the other and combining admirably. I allude to the spirit of religion and the spirit of liberty”
“It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.” George Washington
“I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” Thomas Jefferson
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams
“Jack Meoff is a moron.” Richard Zuendt
May 28th, 2009 at 10:11 pmZuendt is in no position to comment on this. Give up the hate Zuendt!!! You didn’t have to tell us that you were against the Hispanic nominee…we know how you feel!!!
May 29th, 2009 at 7:11 amThat’s all very nice Zuendt, providing a bunch of remarks made by these well known champions of the revolution. That does not change the fact that this “Judeo-Christian” country was built on the blood and massacre of at least twelve million native inhabitants. I am as proud as the next guy to be American but that does not mean that I must have an unrealistic view of the past. Grow up! This isn’t grade school.
“How dare you ever use the words “a piece of paper” to describe the most important ideals ever developed by mankind. For free men and women, that paper represents all of their dreams for a future of freedom. That is why people are willing to risk all to get to this country. That piece of paper puts fear into the hearts of people who wish to enslave their populations. No sir, that is not “a piece of paper”, it is rather a covenant with mankind that their existent will be one of hope and freedom. ”
Au contraire monsieur, the ideas expressed in the constitution were French ideas. Put that in your pipe and smoke it! The “Enlightenment” or “Age Of Reason” began in Europe and spread to Britain and the colonies. All that is good about this country did not begin and end with Thomas Jefferson and his slave-owning cronies. Those days are long behind us. Get with the program.
“ What do you think all of the patriots who have given their lives and limbs did it for?”
I suppose they fought and died so that twinkle-bell hero-worshipping fairies like you could go on believing in Santa Claus and flying flags and pretending that all of history’s best ideas are yours alone. You have that right. You also have the right to go about calling other people “idiots” (or “idoits” if you prefer). God bless you.
This is my country.
May 29th, 2009 at 11:40 amAre you totally out of your mind, or is it just the result of a recent accident? The Age of Reason and Enlightenment was not what brought people to this country. It was to escape persecution and discrimination based on religious beliefs and economic status. Monarchies, the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of England and a caste system based on monetary status controlled Europe, not the people. That is why the first admendment to the constitution guarantees freedom of religion and the Declaration of Independence states that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.
As far as French ideas, the French revolution was AFTER our revolution, and they used our revolution and constitution to replace the monarchy that was in place. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen was adopted 1793, six years after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution and sixteen years after the Declaration of Independence. This was the document that was the result of the French revolution. The French have never lead, they follow.
Finally, if you did a little research and read closer, you would realize that the “blood and massacre” of naive inhabitants actually occured after the formation of this country. Prior to the westward expansion, there was some, but not that much conflicct between the indians and settlers of this country. Go back and read my statement again, “this country was founded as a Judeo-Christian country”. I never said that all of the inhabitants of the country followed that belief. Yes, there were times of disgrace, but that does not change the fact that the country was founded on, and that was Judeo-Christian values.
I guess I had a dyslexic moment spelling idiot. Let’s I hope I do not make the same mistake here. You sir, are a moron!
May 29th, 2009 at 2:27 pmMr. Williams:
The reason I said ‘you might as well flush it down the toilet’ is because people like you who claim that, or advocate for the idea, the constitution is a ‘living, breathing’ document are really saying it’s words mean nothing. You simply ignore its meaning and apply any meaning to it you wish.
The fact of the matter is the constitution is what protects our God-given rights outlined in the Declaration. The further we stray from the constitution’s true meaning as the Founders intended, the more rights we lose.
By the way, just what in the constitution do you disagree with? Which rights do you not like or desire for yourself and your fellow citizens? Do you not like the separation of powers? What about our system of government as set up in the constitution do you wish to change?
Moreover, what books have you read on the subject of the court? Do you understand the difference between originalists and non-originalists? Do you know that judicial review is not even in the constitution? At least give us some clue that you have any idea what you’re talking about and how and why you have arrived at this incorrect notion that the constitution is a living, breathing document?
You say the Founders may not have foreseen certain things in present day society and that there might be omissions? On what issues has the constitution not provided us with direction on handling present day issues? Give us some examples.
If you can answer even half of these questions then you might actually garner some credibility. It’s easy to just throw the idea out there of a ‘living, breathable document’ but let’s see you actually think through what you mean by that and actually apply it.
I will anxiously await your response.
May 29th, 2009 at 2:46 pmZuendt,
You remind me of one of those punching clowns. People knock you down but you keep coming back.
The role of the Puritans has already been discussed in post 27. Why you choose to ascribe the term “Judeo-Christian” to these anti-Semitic anti-Catholic radical Protestant doomsday scavengers defies logic. We acknowledge they were the first Europeans to settle the Colonies but you greatly over estimate their importance. Ultimately the end of times did not arrive and despite all the witches they burned overwhelming hardships and sickness plagued their efforts to establish a lasting influence. Wealthy Englishmen like William Penn succeeded the Puritans and assured the success of the Colonies. They used the promotion of religious freedom as a means to attract settlers into their territories. Again, these wealthy Englishmen were more interested in John Locke than Jesus.
The decimation of the native population began as early as the dawn of the seventeenth century and lasted three hundred years. Obviously the “rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” did not apply to them. “Yes, there were times of disgrace”, as you acknowledge!
And just because the French Revolution followed ours does not mean the French did not originate the many postulations and philosophies behind our constitution. This is your greatest sin, Mr. Zuendt: your unabashed American chauvinism! To say that “The French have never lead [sic] , they follow” is the ultimate in pomposity. What would possess you to make a statement so indecent and outrageous? Are you simply trying to score points with your like-minded bigoted drinking buddies? How do you hope to maintain an air of credibility when you make remarks like that?
You have every right to believe America emerged from a magic mushroom blessed by Puritan angels spreading Judeo-Christian fertilizer while the French painted animals on the walls of their caves. If it pleases you to call me a “moron” you can go right ahead! Believe what you want to believe, Mr. Zuendt! That is the principle on which this great nation was founded!
God bless you.
May 29th, 2009 at 5:10 pmChris DeSimine:
The guillotine of “Liberty, Fraternity and Equality” that was the French Revolution was not inspired by the freedom at the heart of “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” which was the American Revolution. Nor did it precede the American Revolution intellectually. The bloodshed of the Reign of Terror has no analogue in the American Revolution nor in American history generally.
Furthermore and relatedly, the Native American populations were savages that murdered each other not to mention the American colonists that settled here. The Native Americans had no *right* to expect better treatment from the European settlers than they treated each other. In fact, “rights” are a creation of Western culture (deriving specifically from John Locke and some others of the English and Scottish Enlightenments – witness the savagery of the French Revolution and its Reign of Terror) and did not exist at all in Native American culture. Thus, to speak of the “rights” of Native Americans in an American context is a contradiction in terms. The American colonists did not violate the rights of Native American peoples because such rights did not exist. Rights exist only within a certain context, and that context is a civilized society. (This is also why speaking of the “rights” of criminals is mostly a contradiction also).
What happened to the Native American peoples was too bad and I would prefer it to have not happened. But it was not a disgrace nor was it wrong. America owes no apology to Native Americans, to whom we introduced the concept of rights – not to mention science and reason as replacements for mysticism. Thanks to those settlers, those Native Americans have running water, irrigation and dams – instead of rain dances praying for rain.
May 29th, 2009 at 9:14 pmDeSimine:
I don’t have time for you anymore you moron. Believe what ever you want about the French, they do. Believe what ever you want about yourself, your alter ego does.
As far as being an “unabashed American Chauvinist”, you can bet your sweet ass on that one dude!
May 29th, 2009 at 9:30 pm“And just because the French Revolution followed ours does not mean the French did not originate the many postulations and philosophies behind our constitution.”
They did not. The US Constitution was finalized in 1787 and ratified by the requisite states in 1789. The first 10 Amendments were, written before the French Constitution of September 1791 was adopted. All but five of the original states (VT, VA, MA, GA, CT) ratified them before the French Constitution of September 1791 was adopted.
Most post-1791 amendments have also nothing to do with the French revolution.
May 30th, 2009 at 2:41 pmMazlish:
I never claimed The French Revolution was inspired by our revolution. I said the French influenced us. I said John Locke’s influence was more important to the foundation of our country than the Puritans. I should have qualified that by saying John Locke and other Enlightenment writers. I was also thinking of the Frenchman Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a name that is synonymous with the Enlightenment. I believe the framers of our constitution were familiar with Rousseau’s work. Therefore, many of the postulations and philosophies behind our constitution are French ideas. I made no stipulation whatsoever about our influence upon the French.
I am well aware of the warring nature of many Indian Nations, especially the Susquehannock and Iroquois that were indigenous to our area. Nevertheless, your position that rights exists only within a certain context is in direct opposition of our Declaration of Independence which reads “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. Unfortunately I tend to agree with you. That means the Declaration, despite all its magic grade school pixie dust shoved down the throats of little children, is just hypocrisy.
Some of these children never grow up. Some of these children want to live in a “World Before Columbus”. They claim that the constitution is not a living document despite its 27 Amendments! Some of these children forget that the French were our ally during the Revolution. At a distance these children are comedic, but up close they are dangerous. Some of these poor brain-washed children grow up so pumped up with patriotic zealously they do not see what’s wrong with being chauvinistic! As a matter of fact they are actually proud of it!!!
Well, that is their right I suppose. At least they’ve resorted to using words like “moron”. I mean, how can you switch the vowels around with a word like that?
May 30th, 2009 at 6:37 pmJust in case anybody is still listening I want to remind you that it was another Frenchman, Charles de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu that influenced the framers, more so than Rousseau.
Montesquieu was born in 1689 and died in 1755. He devised our system of “checks and balances”, the very system that we are debating about in this thread!
All of you dear ladies and gentlemen that argue about “activist judges” should read up about the separation of powers in the United States: Legislative Power, Executive Power, & Judicial Power.
You can thank a Frenchman for this.
May 30th, 2009 at 8:12 pmDeSimine:
No one is paying any attention to you anymore, since you are a moron. Oh, and as far as thanking a Frenchman, you got it. Thank you Frenchman, for nothing!
May 30th, 2009 at 8:30 pm…right, I am the moron. Thanks for clearing that up. I’m looking forward to your next insightful post.
May 30th, 2009 at 8:54 pmyour site is very great!!!
September 11th, 2009 at 6:21 amgood site, good work, thanks!!!
September 14th, 2009 at 8:54 amGreat site, thanks
September 19th, 2009 at 1:18 pm