Thursday, October 13, 2005

Fair and Balanced...

I will admit that I enthusiastcally ran down to the polls and voted for President Bush, both times. (Suprise, suprise...)

I have not always agreed with everything that he has done, but I will say that he promised to do everything that he has done before I voted for him, so, if I was paying attention, I already knew what he was going to do.

Until the Miers nomination.

One of the main reasons that I voted for President Bush was that I knew that he was going to have the opportunity to nominate at least two Supreme Court Justices, and I did not want a Democrat President to get to nominate them.

Now, don't get me wrong. I personally have no problem whatsoever with Harriet Miers being placed on the Supreme Court. The only litmus test that matters to me is, Can she read and understand a document written in English, and can she understand the oath she will take, and will she adhere to it?

I don't care that she never has been a Judge before. I don't care if she never went to Law school. All I want is for her to apply the Constitution (The U.S. Constitution...) to whatever case she is presented with, use common sense when making her decisions, and do not institute her own personal policy preferences into National Law through the Court.

That's it.

If she can do these things, then in my opinion, she is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.

And I believe that she can. The President believes that she will.

Good enough for me.

Here is the problem.

A whole lot of conservatives have worked extremely hard to get President Bush elected for this exact reason. They want him to select nominees to the Court who represent their viewpoint.
They (We...) expect him to.
And have every right to.

Or DO they?

Isn't that the very problem that we say we have with the Supreme Court already? That there are Justices on the Supreme Court who have a particular viewpoint, and interpret the Constitution according to their particular political leanings?

Is it a little hypocritical to want to put a flaming right winger on the Court to counter Ghinsburg?

If Ghinsburg gets to serve, then isn't it fair that the Conservatives get a Justice just as radical the other way?

In this case, do two wrongs make a right?


Son of Lilith said...

Good luck finding a court appointee that passes your litmus test. The very nature of politics allows for someone to use their position of power to push their own beliefs/agenda, and to use their subordinates to futher that cause. We just have to make sure that the correct and proper beliefs/agendas are being pushed, but since there are so many different definitions of "correct and proper" it's nearly impossible to truly see that happen.

Am I happy about Miers? No. I am not a conservative. Would I rather see the Supreme Court staffed with liberals? Yes. Would that be fair to the conservatives of this country? Well, their beliefs would not be represented, so no. Do I believe that liberal philosophies are the best for the country? Yes. Does that mean it's okay to push my beliefs on everyone? No.

Is politics a really, really, bug mess?

Son of Lilith said...

*big mess.

And the answer is yes.

Toad734 said...

Maybe all the right wingers were expecting someone who didn't understand the constitution, and wouldn't follow what it says. Maybe that's the problem; they wanted an activist and didn't get it.

Oh and in no way am I saying she is actually qualified. I just think most people were looking for someone who blew up planned parenthoods, assassinated abortion doctors and wanted to turn the US into a fundamentalist Christian theocracy.

Mark said...

Toad, that's a giant leap of logic there.

Republicans only want a Justice that will strictly interpret the Constitution.

Or should want that.

Mark said...

Good post, Tug

tugboatcapn said...

Brandon, the reason that the Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment is so that the Justices do not have to worry about getting elected, or re-elected. This was supposed to insulate the Court from politics.

The Court was never supposed to be a political body.

Did I understand you correctly?
Are you asserting that anyone we may appoint to the Court will insert their own politics into their decisions, so we should appoint justices who will use the court to ammend and pervert the Constitution in the immage of our own politics?

I am not so cynical that I believe that there is no hope of finding an objective person to sit on the Supreme Court.
When I do start to believe that, I will begin to work for the complete abolishment of the Supreme Court.

tugboatcapn said...

Toad, that comment is a top notch example of why Liberals MUST be defeated.

People like you absolutely WOULD make policy based on that kind of blind hatred and stereotyping of your political opponents.

If you don't understand Conservatives any better than that, then keep your stupid little opinion to yourself.

Son of Lilith said...


I too believe that there are completely objective people out there, I just don't think that they are in politics.

The Court itself may not be political, but the judges are appointed and confirmed by politicans, making it just as political as everything else.

How many completely objective people are in politics and could make political connections? Not many, since the political system is so polarized in in our country. So I don't see a completely objective person being on the court.

tugboatcapn said...

Well, if that is the case, then we need to re-examine the system by which Justices are selected.

This is not a difficult concept. The Constitution says what it says. It is not the place of the Supreme Court to right social wrongs, or correct injustice in the system. Supreme Court Justices are not supposed to have the power to determine what the Constitution SHOULD say.

They are supposed to apply what it SAYS.

I do not want an activist FROM EITHER SIDE on the Court.

Apparently a lot of other people do.

This is not a good trend.

tugboatcapn said...

And Mark, Thanks for the compliment.

I try...

Son of Lilith said...

I wholeheartedly agree that the process by which judges are appointed needs to be re-examined.

You know, I watched the PBS documentary about Ben Franklin. One of the commentators on it mentioned that the founding fathers saw the Constitution and the very government of the US as an experiment. While I can't read the founding fathers' minds, the gentleman had a point.

I think it's time to seriously re-examine our system and make some major changes. The process of appointment to the Supreme Court should be one of them. I wouldn't mind them being popularly elected. That would make the process even more political than it is now, but it would shift some power and influence from the President and the Legilature to the people, and I say that's a good thing.

Mark said...

I don't know about making it an elected position, but I do favor term limits for the SCOTUS

Son of Lilith said...

If nothing else, YES.

tugboatcapn said...

Mark, I think that having public elections for Supreme Court Justices would be disasterous, however I would be in favor of term limits for everyone in Washington, from Supreme Court Justices to Senators and Congressmen, all the way down to the White House Custodial staff. I would also change things so that once a person had served out their term in any National office, they could never run for public office again. Anywhere, for anything.

There are roughly 300 million peopel in the U.S., and you cannot convince me that the crop we have up there now are the best and brightest, no matter which side they are on.

There are too many people up there right now who have been there way too long, and subsequently there are no new ideas to deal with new problems, or if there are new ideas from new people, they are over ruled by the Dinosaurs.

I believe that things would change if our elected leaders ever believed that they would have to go back home and live by the laws that they make.

Toad734 said...

I wasn't saying all conservative; you can't tell me that Dobson, Robertson and those types wouldn't welcome such a person. Admit it; the people who are pissed were looking for the activist judge they claim to hate so much. Since abortion, for example isn't in the constitution it would be kind of hard for a judge to overturn roe v wade based on the constitution wouldn't it; it would almost take someone's opinion from the bench to do such a thing wouldn’t it?

The words “fully automatic handgun” aren’t in the constitution either but I don't see any conservative judges rushing to outlaw them.

tugboatcapn said...

Toad, let me get this straight...

Abortion can be legalized by the Supreme court even though it is not in the Constitution, but then it cannot be overturned because it is not in the Constitution because THAT would be activism??

Did you ACTUALLY say that?

With every comment, Toad, you continue to undermine your own credibility as a reasonable and thinking participant in our discussions here.

Son of Lilith said...

It's ridiculous to interpret the Constitution literally. It was written over two hundred years ago when terms such as "abortion" and "fully automatic handgun" were not in use. The sensible thing to do, and the point I think that Toad was trying to make, is that the only thing we can do is to take the rights outlined in the Constitution and apply them to these situations.

So yes, it would take someone's opinion to make a call on these topics.

And Tug, your comments regarding the stagnation of our government (no new people, no new ideas) were classic.

Toad734 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Toad734 said...


Yes just as I pointed out the case with automatic weapons; the NRA uses the constitution to say they should be legal when the constitution never mentions military weapons. And though abortion is not in the constitution the right to personal privacy is.

So, if you are saying abortion is not protected under the constitution then machine guns and school prayer aren't either.

I'm sorry this was so hard for you to comprehend. I will spell out my analogies word for word from now on.

tugboatcapn said...

Toad, The right to personal privacy is not specifically in the Constitution either. However the right to Life IS, as is the right to the free exercise of Religion, and the right to bear arms.

So, yes, Abortion, School Prayer, and even Machine Guns ARE mentioned, and you are wrong on all three of these issues.

The Constitution is designed to limit Government, not the rights of Citizens.

Oh and please spare me any more of your enlightenment.

tugboatcapn said...

And if you want to spell something out word for word for me, then try spelling out word for word where the Constitution gives you a right to personal privacy, restricts prayer of any kind, gives anyone the right to kill babies, born or unborn, or lists the specific type of Arms that I can bear.

I comprehend things just fine. You and others like you need to get a handle on your overactive immaginations when it comes to Constitutional Law.

Mike said...

Go back to your country !!!! I as a native American was here first you truck driving redneck!!! Now give me back my hooch, my jobs, and you can leave the white women's ...I need some cleaning done.. my tee-pee is a little messy.

tugboatcapn said...

Aren't you in the wrong post, Tonto?

This one is about the Supreme Court...The one I wrote tommorrow is the one about Immigration... ;)

If I didn't know you,Mike, I would have thought you were serious.

Mike's America said...


YOU ARE BEING HOAXED! Seems you have inherited the FULL PANOPLY of Moonbats that usually infect my pages.

It's a parade of Fakes, Phonies, Fools and Freaks...

That previous comment by "Mike" using the link to Mike's America is most likely one of the vile little liars that thinks he is too clever for the rest of us.

Drop me a line at Mike's America and we can figure out who it is (pretty good idea).

Meanwhile, just ignore this tag team of teenie boppers. If they had half a brain apiece I'd say you were in trouble.