Wednesday, August 10, 2005

Roberts inquiry brings up Schiavo / High court nominee tells senator his view on end-of-life case

Well, I still don't really know enough abut this guy to have much of an opinion on him one way or another, but things like this make me feel more comfortable.

"I asked whether it was constitutional for Congress to intervene in an end-of-life case with a specific remedy," Wyden said, in a telephone interview after the meeting. "His answer was, 'I am concerned with judicial independence. Congress can prescribe standards, but when Congress starts to act like a court and prescribe particular remedies in particular cases, Congress has overstepped its bounds.' "

At least he seems to understand the separation of powers better than most of the extremist wingnuts that are currently running our country, or at least he knows how to pretend he does. So, who's going to break it to the extremists that this guy is just another activist judge? After all, using words like "judicial independence" certainly don't line up with the extremist agenda.

Posted by


Chris Howard said...

Yeah, it may not be as bad as we had feared. It's too early to tell. Maybe he'll turn out to be a late-blooming liberal like Stevens or Souter. I doubt it, but we can hope.

Robert Bayn said...

The more i hear about him the more i like him.

And take this into consideration, the extremes on both sides hate him, that makes me think he might actually be good for this country.

John Howard said...

That's a good point, Robert, if both sides hate him, maybe he's reasonable.

Always Sourced, Never Disputed said...

JRH I will assume this is an accurate quote and I going accept it as it is presented.

We, society in general, have made Judgeship positions political. Accordingly, I am going to grant him great latitude in answering questions during these hearings. I am certain he does not want to "offend" either side and therefore he likely appear to be on the fence.

The first part of your monologue is exactly correct. Neither you nor I know enough about this guy to decide whether he is qualified or not and frankly we have better things to do with our time than to spend hours researching him. That is the whole reason why we "hire" our leader to make that nomination for us and then "hire" Senators to vote on those nominations.

Should we be critical and questions? Absolutely, positively, without a doubt.

The rest of your opening statement is confusing to me. Do you actually believe Conservatives like activist judges? Nothing could be further from the truth. Both the Conservatives here in America's heartland and those in the Supreme Court were against the recent obvious abuse of the use of emminent domain. The media portrayed as business/Republicans/Conservatives sticking it to the little guy but the reality is the Conservative judges recognized the problem and voted against the business in this case.

Always Sourced, Never Disputed said...

In the matter of Roe v. Wade, there are many right wing nut in the Republican party. However, the vast bulk of the membership simply wants Congress to do it's job. We want then to actually write a law and preferably one that conforms to the judges decision.

Always Sourced, Never Disputed said...

In the matter this summer involving Capital Punishment, we are concerned that the Federal court made a policy for punishment guidelines for cases in the jurisdiction of all 50 states. No law just 9 judges decision and thousands of sentences handed down by the will of the people in a state are commuted to life.

Always Sourced, Never Disputed said...

In the matter in Texas about 2-3 years ago involving sodomy laws.

We are not against gays and we certainly do not believe the Police should be inspecting our bedrooms. I can not speculate on the origin of these sodomy laws other than perhaps to stop the spread of diseases, but today clearly we as a society are only concerned about these actions in public regardless of the gender of the parties.

The whole use of the 4th Amendment in this arguement is ridiculous. We are feel from unreasonable searches and seizures not to commit any crime we want in our homes. It would have been better to just state the obvious, no case would have be brought if the participants were to 2 women or a man and woman. The matter should never have graced the bench at any level.