Posted on 10/20/2005 10:02:51 AM PDT by Crackingham
Somebody posted some stats yesterday on how often any two justices have agreed with each other. The Thomas-Scalia combination ranked only about 7th with about 70% or so of their decisions matching. I personally think Thomas is the better of the two.
Miers ping #2.
Kristol is not a conservative, and doesn't speak for me on Miers. He is a whiny little wimp who like his candidate McCain takes whatever position will get him into the newspapers.
To say he just says "me too" when Scalia writes an opinion shows your ignorance of Supreme Court jurisprudence. Scalia and Thomas have different views of Constitutional law and disagree on many cases. Scalia is a textualist and Thomas is an originalist. Thomas has written many powerful dissents, such as the U. of Mich case this year.
And, if Scalia is such a domineering voice on the court, how come he hasn't been able to swing O'Connor and Kennedy more his way?
You love to base arguments on speculation, don't you? How do you know that in the cases he votes with Scalia, they wouldn't have voted the other way but for his convincing? You also need to start thinking long term. It isn't all about convincing fellow judges on the SCOTUS. It is also about presenting intellectual arguments to change the course of thought in legal acedemia. Without Scalia or Thomas on the Court, law students (i.e. future judges) would hear the rantings of Ginsberg and Souter with no intelligent counterargument and become Ginsbergs and Souters themselves.
No Supreme Court justice has to recuse themselves on any case. Look at Scalia. The only cases he has recused himself on is one or two that may have mentioned his son.
He didn't recuse himself from the case about Cheney's energy committee, even though liberals (and some conservatives) were saying he should because he goes duck-hunting with Cheney every year.
Recusals are at the discretion of the justice.
Percentage of cases in agreement in the 2004 term:
Souter/Ginsburg - 85%
Rehnquist/O'Connor - 79%
Rehnquist/Kennedy - 77%
Stevens/Souter - 77%
Ginsburg/Breyer - 77%
Thomas/Scalia - 73%
You may not like it, but its a careful and well reasoned remark. You act as though this is the first post I've made on the subject matter. Well, it isn't.
Kristol has been out there opining since he first heard that Bush`s pick was Miers. Along with other so-called conservative pundits, Kristol's endless criticism of both Bush and Miers has reached the point of serving no good purpose. They're now just senseless attacks that only give the Demlibrats ammo to shoot the the Prez and his nominee. In fact, it undermines the process and shows a total lack of resepct for the President's decision. Bush has a good track record of nominating/appointing solid conservatives to the federal courts. At this point, why not give Bush and Miers the benefit of the doubt, and allow Miers her opportunity to speak out in the Senate hearings.
These are strange times when M. Malkin recommends a NYSlimes editorial.
Surely H. Miers didn't really believe that the 14th Amendment requires "proportional representation".
She might make a great justice, but if she says things like that in the hearings Leaky and Co. are going to grab a leg and make a wish.
(I know: 'Don't call me Shirley.')
Now adding Clarence Thomas to the long list of conservatives getting trashed by Bush/Miers supporters. By the time this is all over, it will be Bush/Miers = Good, All Other Conservatives = Bad.
Oh, stop crying! Thomas was viewed as a blank slate who had worked at the EEOC when he was named to the court in 1991. National Review said he "appeared more Souter-like."
But, I'm not one of those who wants a legal colossus on the Supreme Court as long as she votes the right way.
You didn't get my point---I said "judicial ethics," didn't I? It is unethical for a judge to hear and determine a matter on which he/she has rendered advice to one litigant---that's a clear conflict of interest. Maybe Miers won't have the backstop of a rule preventing her from hearing cases on which she has an obvious conflict---and maybe that's one of the reasons Bush picked her---but that sure doesn't prevent the Senators that have to pass on this nomination from finding out how she intends to "exercise her discretion," now does it? And if she doesn't answer---and so far she's not answering---that's another damn good reason to turn down this nominee.
Telling Kristol to STFU is a well-reasoned remark?
It sounds more like an angry, knee-jerk response to a pundit/columnist who is expressing an opinion that you don't like, and therefore, think he should be silenced, with the gratuitious 'he's entitled to his opinion' thrown in to make you look reasonable.
Your tagline about sums it all up. It's sad what this issue has done to us. I thought we were all better than this.
Yeah, well deacon, since you have been here I have noticed that your "right way" takes a lot of opportunistic left turns.
Kristol, the butt boy of John McPain, has been peddling his slander about the President to whomever will listen. He is a pathetic ninny.
Bush would end up not having moved the court to the right at all,"
How does he KNOW this? I understand those who fear this because we don't know enought about her, I agree that we don't know, and I want to know.
But how does he not only KNOW what her philosophy is, but also KNOWS that it isn't to the right of O'Conner?
Yes, I guess he does fit the NE liberal at heart category.
Last night Krauthammer seemed to be backing off and saying that anyone who deosn't think Bush is a conservative is foolish, and that he continues to support the president. Perhaps Krauthammer looked around at the people he is running with and had second thoughts. At least it seemed to me that while he was still critical of the nomination, he wasn't going to jump off the cliff with Kristol and Frumm.
DITTO!!!! AND AMEN!!!!!!!!!
Interesting you should say that about Krauthammer. I posted a message last week criticizing all of these "professional pundits" like George Will and William Kristol for their nonsensical/hypocritical opinions on this issue, and I made sure to include a caveat about Krauthammer. He may be a "professional pundit" by trade, but he does have a medical background and therefore doesn't really belong in the same category as some of those others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.