Shifting and shifty standards for court appointments

Canada Free Press ^ | Wednesday, July 6, 2005 | Michael M. Bates

[Alexander Rubin]

The word of the week is consultation. As in, it’s essential for President Bush to engage in consultation with Democrats before nominating anyone to the Supreme Court.

And it has to be genuine, according to New York’s Senator Charles Schumer, who demands "real, face-to-face, back-and-forth consultation."

Let’s see. Democrats have managed to lose their control of the House of Representatives. They lost control of the Senate. They lost control of the White House.

This places them in a somewhat less than ideal position to be issuing demands. It’s rather like Robert E. Lee insisting on "real, face-to-face, back-and-forth consultation" with General Grant in setting the terms at Appomattox.

Replacing Sandra Day O’Connor will be a long, ugly, drawn-out mess. The President’s nominee will be subjected to withering scrutiny. No aspect of his or her life will go unexamined.

[Alexander Rubin]

An excelelnt article on why we are heading into a real 'quagmire' that will result in very few people being happy.

[SAJ]

Very nice article, Mike. Spot on about Buzzi's testimony, too!

[Mike Bates]

Most kind, thanks.

[Mack the knife]

So Ruthie went into her hearings and was confident enough to set the guidelines by which she’d be questioned. She had, she said, "my rule about no hints, no forecasts, no previews" about how she might rule in any future decision.

She rope-a-doped the Judiciary Committee like a champ: "I can't express my personal view on that subject." "I cannot say one word on that subject. . ." "I prefer not to address a question like that." "Senator, I would prefer to await a particular case."

It would be interesting if a nominee would say,

"As Justice Ginsberg said in her confirmation hearing, 'I would prefer to await a particular case'; or

'I am going to follow Justice Ginsberg's precedent in these hearings -I am not going to say one word on that subject'; or

'You know, you did not object when Justice Ginsberg refused to answer such questions, so you now have no right to press me for such an answer. If you continue to insist, you will demonstrate that your part in these hearings are completely partisan, and thus your questions are simply political rhetoric rather than having a legitimate purpose.'

Sometimes the truth is a very powerful thing.

[Alexander Rubin]

Yep. I don't hate Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, like I do...say...Kennedy and Souder. I do, however, think she is extremely misguided and inadvertently strengthening the cause of tyranny even though she is trying to do right by many folks.

[FReethesheeples]

Thanks for your post. Bump.

For those of us who are deeply concerned with protection of Private Property from improper application of Eminent Domain in contravention of the Original Intent of the Founders in the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause, I am registering a warning or a concern:

I think AG (& potential USSC Nominee) Alberto Gonzales is very weak on Private Property Rights and lacks an understanding of orignainl intent of the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause (Eminent Domain) based both upon some cases when he ws at the texas Supreme Ct. (e.g., FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2000))

and, more recently and significantly, upon his NOT having joined in the Kelo case on the side of property owner. My understanding ws that he had sided with the League of Cities against Kelo while WH Counsel.

As some have frequently observed, he certainly believes in a "Living Constitution" and is NOT a strict constructionist or an Originalist, but rather tends toward the Activist side, per National Review Online and others.

He has been sharply critical of Priscilla Owen in some Texas Supreme Ct. decisions when they were both on that Ct. as Justices, and he has been quoted as being sharply criticial fo Janice Rogers Brown, including being quoted by People for the American Way in their ultra-leftist propaganda.

It is great to see Americans so aware of, & energized in defense of, private property rights by addressing threats, this terrible precedent (Kelo v. New London), and becoming aware of the downside of activist Judges. I have been concerned with both of these related issues for about a decade. I even had brief, separate, conversational encounters with two of the "good" Justices (Scalia & Thomas) in the Kelo case about 6 or 7 years ago re: "The Takings Clause" of the 5th Amendment designed to protect private property from arbitrary seizures, but providing for Eminent Domain for certain "public use" (NOT "public purpose") . It was clear they were anxious to see some good cases walk toward them. I doubt if they would have predicted the bizarre outcome in Kelo, though.