Glum Democrats Can't See Halting Bush on Courts

New York Times ^ | 01/14/2006 | Adam Nagourney, Richard W. Stevenson, Neil A. Lewis

[Democratshavenobrains]

What did the Democrats expect? That Alito would stand up and shout obscenitites during his hearing? The man was obviously well qualified and has been a judge for 15 years. He isn't going to be outsmarted by bunch of trust fund babies that have been living off past glory and rhetoric for decades.

[Mygirlsmom]

Is there something wrong with putting a qualified candidate on the court?

It depends on what you believe the function of the courts to be.

[Lancey Howard]

The Democrat Party has become nothing more than a literary device for the socialists at the New York Times. The editors and other mice of the liberal newsroom simply cannot believe that their "power" has become so little in the face of smothering competition from the more truthful and reliable new media that a Republican President can ignore them completely.

[Lancey Howard]

I noticed that there were several examples shown of the Democrats holding the position that the American people are not smart enough to know what they want--that they just don't understand what is happening!

Good catch. The attitude which you picked up is the very essence of the dying, socialist 'old media' newsrooms, and indeed of liberalism itself. Liberals ALWAYS know better than everybody else what's good for them.

[Lancey Howard]

You're way off. A state cannot decide that its women shouldn't be allowed to vote, and a state cannot decide to confiscate my property and hand it over to another private citizen. Both acts violate the Constitution.

[ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY]

The smell of dead Democrats is the whiff of victory...

To everyone

I too am encouraged by the way things seem to be going; but yall's celebratory comments make me nervous. It's way too early to declare victory. The godless Left has had control of this country since 1933, and it's going to take a long time to restore this country's Judeo-Christian culture. Getting constitutional originalists on the courts is a big step in the right direction, but they're going to be vilified as"un-American" by a couple of generations brainwashed by the left! Until we can restore sanity in our schools and resume instilling traditional values in our children, it's going to be an uphill battle all the way. Don't give up, Let's fight the Good Fight, but don't celebrate...Yet!

[middie]

A state cannot create a standard that purports to supercede the U.S. Constitution. Thus, your analogy is absurd. However, so long as a state specific definition of an ambiguous term like "public purpose" is not inconsistent with due process or any other established constitutional doctrine, such a definition is permissible. Example, a state could legitimately define that term to exclude a judicial taking for the exact purpose that underlay the Kelo facts. More than 25 states have already done exactly that.

[Lancey Howard]

Oh, so you're one of those "living document" liberals for whom words have no meaning. "Public purpose" can be... well, anything. You're the one who's being absurd, Bunky.

[Lancey Howard]

Great post! BUMP!

[KCRW]

The "old gray lady", also known as the New York Times, is getting older by the minute.

Here is yet another article from the NYT's that shows that the old media is out of step with America.

[middie]

Define "due process"--"Reasonable Doubt"--"Just Compensation"---"Freedom of Speech"---"Toyality of the Circumstances" (from the Class Action fairness Act)--"Primary Defendant"--"significant Basis" "Significant Relief" (same)--Statutes, agency reulations and the Constitution itself are replete with ambiguities that require the courts to interpret and apply to specific case. That's what the uninformed refer to as "making law" or the universal pejorative "legislating from the bench."

What that really means is that the decision and interpretation of the ambiguious term material to the case was decided in a manner opposed by the person using the critical and pejorative descriptions.

Law is necessarily unclear and ambiguous otherwise judges would have nothing to do and the law would be the same a the French system where, if it's not in the statute books, it doesn't exist. That is not consistent with the common law tradition of American law. The very first statute in the U.S. Code and every state, except Louisana, recognizes the common law of England as it existed on July 4, 1776 and incorporates that common law into our law.

And, although the Erie Doctrine of federal common law does not any longer exist, there is, nonetheless, a vast body of common law cited in our decisions and court decisions.