Too important for mediocrity

The Washington Times ^ | 7-12-05 | Bruce Fein

[JZelle]

The U.S. Supreme Court is too important for mediocrities. The justices chronically write ill-reasoned opinions that sow rather than dispel confusion. Insipid minds incline toward major constitutional blunders. Justice Henry Brown pronounced the "separate but equal" doctrine in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896); Justice Rufus Peckham embraced free enterprise and Herbert Spencer's Social Statics as constitutional mandates in Lochner v. New York (1905); Chief Justice William Howard Taft declared wiretapping and electronic surveillance outside the limits of the Fourth Amendment in Olmstead v. United States (1928); and Justice Harry Blackmun summoned into being a constitutional right to abortion in Roe v. Wade (1973). President George W. Bush should thus resist the personal temptation to appoint Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez as opposed to trenchant legal thinkers to the Supreme Court. That resistance should be fortified by the outlandish opinion of Justice David Souter, appointed by President Bush's father, holding unconstitutional the posting of the Ten Commandments in two county courthouses in McCreary County Kentucky v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky (June 27, 2005).

[JZelle]

This could be the "read my lips" moment for W.

[OKIEDOC]

Bush promised that we would get nominees like Thomas.

I will not take anything less.

A moderate in the eyes of Liberals is another Darth Vader Ginsberg.

To hell with the Dimorats.

A majority of the country wants a Supreme Court that will follow the Constitution, not the whims of some drunken sot like Murdering Teddy Kennedy.

[wideawake]

Not really. He won't be running for reelection.

[JZelle]

"Not really. He won't be running for reelection."


True, but like Dad, his pledge (that he would nominate justices in the mold of Thomas and Scalia) which he spoke to get our votes, will be made hollow by his actions.

[x]

The U.S. Supreme Court is too important for mediocrities. The justices chronically write ill-reasoned opinions that sow rather than dispel confusion. Insipid minds incline toward major constitutional blunders. Justice Henry Brown pronounced the "separate but equal" doctrine in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896); Justice Rufus Peckham embraced free enterprise and Herbert Spencer's Social Statics as constitutional mandates in Lochner v. New York (1905); Chief Justice William Howard Taft declared wiretapping and electronic surveillance outside the limits of the Fourth Amendment in Olmstead v. United States (1928); and Justice Harry Blackmun summoned into being a constitutional right to abortion in Roe v. Wade (1973).

What me "diocre?"

[nicollo]

The U.S. Supreme Court is too important for mediocrities.

Actually, Bruce, the institution is too strong for mediocrity. That's it's genius, and the man you call mediocre, Taft, made sure it'd be that way. Taft institutionalized the Court to such extent that he physically transmogrified it into the third branch of government that Marshall had made. The whole point was that the institution supercede the moment.

But I sure love to see Fein wine about wire-tapping! Too much fun. (It's also fun to see both liberals and conservatives get all wrapped up in Lochner: it was a 14th amendment, equal protection case, strictly, and Spencer's theories meant nothing to it.)

Thanks for the ping!