Elora

Frankly, I think he will. He may be filling lower courts with far-right-wingers, but the Supreme Court gets so much attention and coverage that even people who are only moderately interested in politics will get into it. Casual Democrats will come out of the woodwork for this, and hopefully every single one in DC will sooner slit their wrists than allow another Scalia onto the bench. And if they don't, the Democratic Party will be dead to me.

I don't think even the President's post-war popularity could carry him through a battle like that.

From everything I've read, Gonzales would be far from the worst possibility. He at least doesn't seem to toe the party line at all times.

beejay

Sekulow seems like a bit of a buffoon on the 700 Club (which I watch sometimes for amusement. It's fun to watch Sekulow and Robertson fulminate if they recently lost a case.)

However, the regional ACLJ lawyer (Frank Manion) [who is involved in the current Adams County OH 10C case] has been described by the ICLU (Indiana Civil Liberties Union) lawyer as a "gentleman".

Manion helped my county in their losing 10C argument. I never met him, but his court filings seems as well-argued as they could be when you are on wrong side.

The ACLJ may be on the wrong side of a lot of issues, but they aren't all bullies.

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by fromtheright
Too often in these debates, especially in the highly-charged appointments to the Supreme Court, most of us are too apt to demonize and ridicule appointments on the other side ...

Hey I like to get in the occasional cheap shot too! But seriously, you've got to give credit where credit is due. McConnell graduated at the top of his class from the University of Chicago Law School, clerked for a Supreme Court Justice, and has written several extremely influential law review articles, among many other accomplishments. Those of us that are even remotely interested in some of these issues have to respect that. It takes a hell of a lot of talent and hard work, regardless of the fact we may disagree with his conclusions (or his starting premises) to get where he is at.

You don't just sit down with a case of PBR and crank out a law review article one Saturday evening after mowing the lawn. And McConnell's are of a quality that actually influence the Supreme Court. Most of these people are quite brilliant, with the exception of Clarence Thomas, whose presence on the Court I can't help but regard as a farce.

And let's not forget that these people (the federal judiciary) crank out hundreds and hundreds of opinions every year, whereas we just concentrate on a small handful for our purposes. There is at least as much to debate about the Rehnquist Court's takings clause opinions alone as there is about its religion decisions.

Even so, some of these clowns are worthy of ridicule, for example this Pryor character, and of course the great Judge Roy Moore, but he's an elected judge, so that's a bit different. Those types are always going to have scorn heaped upon them, since they barely even bother to fake being independent and judicious.

Originally posted by fromtheright
I do wish more of his articles were available in the public domain, though I could probably go to my local law library and X-rox them.

Or you could take a college course and get access to LexisNexis' Academic Universe. Or you could PM me.

Originally posted by fromtheright
BTW, I certainly agree with the contrast with Barton.

People like him don't even deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as the most obscure legitimate legal scholar. It's almost not even fair mentioning his name here anymore, it's such a cheap shot to the accommodationists!

Originally posted by fromtheright
And despite my criticism of Kennedy, I am somewhat attracted to his coercion test (that's him and O'Connor, isn't it?) on the establishment issue.

Yeah, Kennedy, along with the Three Stooges occasionally (Allegheny v. ACLU I believe is the operative case). O'Connor is the "endorsement" lady, with a twist of Lemon, or more accurately Lemon with a twist of endorsement (Lynch v. Donnelly and Wallace v. Jaffree).

Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Rights, Liberties, and Justice by Epstein and Walker is a really good book for some at-a-glance stuff.

Jewel

I do hope you are right.

themistocles

I say this with absolutist vigor, but I don't like the idea of American politics descending into parliamentary tripe. You elect a president, you elect all which comes with him, including appointments. Senate is a rubber stamp, only there for the sake of checks and balances, not to void the will of the voters. This is the sort of tripe that sent Franklin Roosevelt into his monsterous attempts to butcher the Constitution. The situation should be avoided and could be avoided if Senate put down their rubber stamp.

Jewel

This assumes that the president was elected in the first place. And even then, congress (and private citizens) are not obligated to let the president do absolutely any thing he wants -- such as filling the judicial seats with activist judges. Yes they are there for the sake of checks and balances -- to make reasonably sure that the judges that are given lifetime appointments actually have the intention of upholding the Constitution.

hezekiah jones

"[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court[.]"

That doesn't sound like a rubber stamp to me.

Elora

How can the Senate serve as a check/balance simply by acting as a rubber stamp? If the President knows that the Senate can or will do nothing, then there is no reason he should be careful about choosing appointments that will satisfy enough people. Liberal Presidents, like FDR, are subject to this too (and you don't hear a lot of conservative whining about stopping up government then ).

Besides which, the voters elected Senators as well, so it's not like we've got some sovereign, untouchable body blocking appointments at will with no accountability to the people. Voters elect a President without knowing for sure what kind of choices he'll make, only with a vague idea. Thus, the checks and balances. The President has no legal right to appoint without the input of other elected officials.

fromtheright

Jewel,

This assumes that the president was elected in the first place. And even then, congress (and private citizens) are not obligated to let the president do absolutely any thing he wants -- such as filling the judicial seats with activist judges.

Are you opposed to all activists or just your activists? Or is it like the quote I've heard before (I don't remember from whom), "He may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch."

Jewel

I'm going to assume you meant to ask me if I was only opposed to right wing activist judges.

I would certainly prefer moderate to liberal judges be appointed to the bench rather than a conservative or an activist of any stripe. The less judicial activism there is going on, the better off the people are. Congress, under any administration, is not obligated to let the president appoint judges who are not likely to give everyone equal protection under the law.