Obama Reaches Out to GOP on Supreme Court Pick

Reader Comments
Back to blog

I canf read your page in Safari 1.2, just figureed I might let you kmow.

seo lace of AL 11:28AM May 02, 2010

+1

soundtracks of AL 7:13AM July 17, 2009

Owl- As much as folks state that the court is stacked with right wing ideologues, I don't see it reflected in the rulings. Could you cite one?
For example, the ruling to allow government entities to utilize eminent domain to take private property and give it to another private owner simply to produce more tax revenue for the government seemed pretty 'liberal'. It certainly broadened the definition of 'public good' in terms of taking private property.
Some folks were upset with the ruling in the Heller case (DC gun ban), but it was very restrained. Even the US Attorney General (arguing FOR THE GUN BAN)in oral arguments acknowledged:
"-- I don't want to foreclose the possibility of the Government, Federal Government making the argument some day -- but I think it is more than a little difficult to say that the one arm that's not protected by the Second Amendment is that which is the standard issue armament for the National Guard, and that's what the machine gun is."
The SCOTUS ruling stuck strictly to the issue brought before the court and just struck down the DC ban on handguns and storage restrictions (as it should have). An activist court could have used the orals, briefs etc. to rule far more broadly on other weapon types etc. Something previous courts have done- extended their ruling beyond the specific issue before them.
I don't agree that it's acceptable for Justice's to throw out precedent or the intent of those who wrote the law before the court and the constitution based on their personal political beliefs and biases. To just blindly accept that is to say that we have no rights.
If we accept that as the standard then our law has no foundation.
In reality however, Justices often tend to suprise the folks who appoint them regardless. It's why I would rather see the standard being the consistency of the law over time.

styrgwillidar of CA 10:06PM May 24, 2009

In a pwrfect world, every judge is chosen for their merits. Unfortunately, in OUR world, the Court has been stacked with right wing ideologues, and, thus, is due for another swing. Since the last crew has not adhered to "precedent," it follows that the new group will also not adhere to "precedent," because they all disagree on what "precedents" mean! Instead, they will rule, AS THE CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES HAVE, from their POLITICAL BELIEFS. Because, unlike the other courts, the Supreme Court DECIDES what the words mean in legal decisions made by the congeress, whereas the other judges decide NOT to decide, and kick it UP to the Supreme Court. If a case gets to the SC, it's because OTHER JUDGES EITHER WOULDN'T TOUCH IT, OR DEFENDANTS WHOLEHEARTEDLY BELIEVED IN THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THEIR CAUSE. In either case, despite all the laws and admonitions, NO ONE CAN FIGURE OUT THE RIGHT ANSWER, yet they ACKNOWLEDGE that there might be an answer in a higher court, because, AN APPEAL CAN BE DENIED yet in cases that arrive at the court, THEY HAVE NOT BEEN.

Owl of CO 2:10AM May 24, 2009

Sure, I watch Faux News, the Communist News Network, read DaliyKos, Huffington Post, Ann Coulter, Al Franken, PJ Orourke, Michelle Malkin, get e-mails from both the Repubs and the Dems. Pretty much anyone on both sides of any issue. Then (GASP!!) I do research myself to verify the facts to make my own decision vice parroting someone else's. It's really the only way to stay informed- analyze the arguments on both sides with the realization that nobody's telling the whole truth, only what supports their view. But it's tought work and requires thinking vice rah-rah automatic support of one side or another. (Both paries act the same by the way, just a matter of which businessmen/organizations they suck up to. Note Obama's handling of POWs has become the same as Bush's with the exception of where to keep them).
Since you mention gay rights and Roe, perhaps you're up to speed on the recent abortion ruling in Sweden that women can abort based on sex of the fetus. This has led to some discussion in the gay community based on if a genetic disposition to homosexuality is proven.
Recall that the basis for abortion being legal in the US is based on the woman's right to control her own body. Father and the fetus have no rights.
Although Burger stated in his concurring opinion in Roe, "Plainly, the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortions on demand." Subsequent court decisions however have resulted in, exactly that- abortion on demand is a legal right.
So, should it be legal for a woman to abort a "gay" fetus? Or a gay couple to abort a 'straight' fetus?
If so, then you're being consistent with prior rulings and meaning. If not, what's your legal basis- and wouldn't it apply to any other genetic group? Why not the handicaped, and then logically why not the healthy?
Do you want the court to redefine the current interpretation of the constitution to either assign rights to the unborn or to state the woman's right to privacy is not absolute?
How about a gay male couple who contract with a surrogate mother- can the contract require aborting a straight baby? Current law would say no, it would not be enforceable due to the absolute nature of the mother's right to privacy. If they can, why can't a straight male enter into a contract requiring the abortion of any fetus produced?
My questions are rhetorical as I don't know where you would stand on the issue. It's simply to show that technological advance in genetics research have implications that could end up in court. I think the underlying legal right should stay the same. Again, otherwise the constitution is meaningless- your rights can be taken away based on individual bias.

styrgwillidar of CA 5:57PM May 23, 2009

GOP sucks,
Actually, I don't beleive ROE should be overturned and I am for gay rights. So whatever bogeymen you are imagining in my comments are your own..
My point is that if the courts redefine the constitution at a whim vice applying the law and the document as written it truly loses any meaning. Whether you lean right or left that is dangerous.
Free speech as we know it today will cease to exist if courts create some type of limitation based n their bias. Gate, treson. etc etc.
By the way, I'm a supporter of the ACLU, I do not see it as liberal or conservative to defend the meaning of the constitution and our rights.

styrgwillidar of CA 2:43PM May 23, 2009

This is a BS wingnut argument for appointing rightwing activist wingnuts to the court. You try to make it sound fair and balanced (watch Faux News a lot, wingnut?), but it isn't. It's code for wingnut activist judges (see Scalia, Roberts, Alito). Try all the BS you want now that Obama is in power; it isn't going to work. We're getting a liberal, we're keeping Roe.Oh, yeah, one more thing. Gay rights. Coming soon to a state near you. Deal.

The GOP Sucks of GA 12:25AM May 23, 2009

To keep the Constitution relevant, it must maintain a consistent meaning. That is, the rights enumerated today mus be the same in 100 years from today.
I don't believe the issue is whether a judge is right, left or mainstream. It is whether they accept the idea that the document provides assurance that the people have certain rights. If we allow justices from either a conervative or liberal viewpoint to let their personal bias or beliefs 'interpret' the constitution to have a different meaning due to changing times, than the document truly becomes meaningless. We then will no longer have rights, we will have privileges dispensed at the whim of the justices according to their biases. Withdrawn or granted as personalities change.
Hence, I would hope President Obama would look for a justice with a respect for the constitution and the importance of it's meaning remaining consistent until amended.
An interesting quote from the DC Court of Appearls on the recent Heller vs DC gun case:
"Nevertheless, it has been suggested by some that only
colonial-era firearms (e.g., single-shot pistols) are covered by
the Second Amendment. But just as the First Amendment free
speech clause covers modern communication devices unknown
to the founding generation, e.g., radio and television, and the
Fourth Amendment protects telephonic conversation from a
“search,” the Second Amendment protects the possession of the
modern-day equivalents of the colonial pistol. See, e.g., Kyllo
v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 31-41 (2001) (applying Fourth
Amendment standards to thermal imaging search)."
I would hope to have a justice that would not use changing times or modern circumstances as an excuse to infringe, reduce or denigrate the rights of the American people. To rule, as in the above passage, on the premise that rights should be presumed to be preserved and pre-eminent through time and it's technological and sociological developments.

styrgwillidar of CA 5:41PM May 22, 2009

he should not have been elected, and he knows it. Baloney that he is going to give the GOP some corporate guy. "Left" is not a term about abortion, gays and gun control. "Left" means a Justice interprets the constitution for PEOPLE, as opposed to "entities" that are not people.

Muser of NM 11:23AM May 22, 2009