Tuesday, July 05, 2005|
Stephen Carter talks about the nomination process for the Supreme Court and how it went terribly wrong in the Jim Crow era and is only compounded now. He talks about how both sides now believe it's up to them to either appoint someone of the appropriate ideological bent (if it's the party in power) or defeat any appointee brought up (if it's not the party in power). It's disappointing that it has come to this. Carter has the following to say about the current situation:
The left of that era was correct. The spectacle we have made of confirmation hearings reinforces the public notion that the justices exist to decide cases the way political movements want them to. Liberals think the right started it, and conservatives think the left started it, but the important question is not who started it but who is going to stop it." That is an important question, but unfortunately, we don't currently have anyone in power in either party to stand up and make that call. Too much is at stake for both parties in this fight. I believe Bush is a strong man but I can't see him telling the far right of his party to take a hike (though I'd LOVE to be proven wrong on this one count). And ever since the Democrats basically shut Lieberman down, I just don't see anyone on that side of the aisle with the intestinal fortitude to tell Bush to just appoint someone who will get the job done correctly. The politiziation of our judicial system is something that will eventually become a huge problem I think. While I'm not so naive as to believe that judges are political, their job is to decide an issue based on the facts, not their particular ideological beliefs. The fact that a Kozinski or a Posner have little to no chance of being nominated shows what a partisan game this has become. The job above all others of a justice on the Supreme Court is to take the Constitution of the United States in one hand and the facts of a case in the other and make sure that the case fits within the confines of our Constitution, nothing else. There should be little politics to it. The fact that the current Court has taken to looking abroad for advice and finding ways to take private citizens land away from them is an abomination. Yes, it's going to be an ugly, ugly summer. I hope that something good comes out of it but the cynic in me is not making any side bets. |
Thursday, June 23, 2005|
Lots of good posts today throughout the blogosphere on the Kelo decision, most of which are much more eloquent than I ever could be. I'll point you over to The Volokh Conspiracy and say just scroll down or you can alway head over to Glenn's place and search for Kelo. This court continues to find ways to deteriorate private rights this term. After Raich and now Kelo, individual rights are greatly deteriorated and that trend will only worsen. This is a disgusting decision today, one huge leap down a very slippery slide towards large-scale government intervention in the name of the public good. I applaud the dissenting judges today (not coincidentally, the same dissenting judges in the Raich case) and heartily deride the majority. When the government can take private property and give it to different private interests, all in the name of "public good", we are dangerously close to moving towards socialism. Normally, that would be a rather sweeping statement, but in light of the decision today, I find it quite apt. |
Wednesday, November 10, 2004|
Let's assume Rehnquist retires. Who becomes Chief Justice? An excellent tease on who we don't want, even if you're a conservative (it's probably not who you think). 6:52:11 PM permalink What do you think? [] trackback [] |
Thursday, October 07, 2004|
Another black mark against the Texas Penal system. Can there be any doubt that the state has executed an innocent man? I don't. 8:01:32 AM permalink What do you think? [] trackback [] |
Saturday, March 06, 2004|
An informative article by Jonathan Gewirtz concerning the conviction of Martha Stewart. His main issue is with the quality of the jury pool in this case and others where it takes a reasonable amount of intelligence and understanding about the facts at hand to make a sound and accurate assessment of what happened. I believe his assertion that jurors should be paid something closer to what they are giving up to serve on jury duty is an excellent one, one that could alleviate a problem that is prevalent, that of rational, intelligent people finding ways to get out of cases that will probably involve a long trial. Another interesting idea would be to have professional jurors, people that are paid by the state to sit on juries and who are expected to have the necessary basic understanding of the law and any background information, such as the fiduciary understanding in the Martha Stewart case. I would hate to be tried by a jury of my peers, mostly because none of them would actually be my peers. If I somehow became implicated in a crime possibly involving a long trial, I know that the people I wanted on my jury, intelligent professionals with a certain amount of rational and logical skills, would do almost anything to avoid the trial if they knew ahead of time that it would be a long one. Instead, I would get people who had other motives for sitting on a long trial, be it avoiding a crappy job, escape from a miserable life, or just plain old fame and fortune. This is not a good way to run a judicial system, it seems to me. I don't expect this to change in the near future but as our judical system and crimes continues to become more and more complex, a change in how we select and reward our juries will become paramount. Eventually, we will have to come to the understanding that juries, whether they are made up of our peers or professional jurors, have to be not only compensated, but just not punished for sitting on jury duty. It should be task of great importance and be viewed as such. |
Last update: 7/29/2005; 10:51:46 PM .
