Constitutional Opinions
Ganging Up on Justices Thomas, Scalia, and Alito
The left used to apply the politics of personal destruction to judicial nominees. Not anymore.
President Obama’s 2010 State of the Union address featured an unprecedented scolding of the conservative Supreme Court justices, seated before him, for their Citizens United campaign finance ruling. It signaled a dangerous escalation in the left’s politicization of the courts and “set the tone,” says Politico, for this year’s “aggressive — and, at times, personal — attack on the… impartiality and ethics of Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and, to a lesser extent, Samuel Alito.”
The attack is being led by left-wing activist groups, talking heads, and a group of liberal congressmen. It is born of unhappiness about the Court’s recent and prospective decisions impacting the Obama agenda, as well as paranoia about a corporate cash-fueled, vast right-wing conspiracy headed by the Koch brothers. And it is maintained by cobbling together tenuous suggestions of conflicts and misconduct involving Scalia, Thomas, and Alito in the hopes of creating an ethical cloud.
At the heart of the charges are contacts that allegedly compromised the three justices’ ability to impartially decide cases, particularly Citizens United and the constitutional challenges to Obamacare. Much of the focus has been on the expense-paid attendance of Justices Scalia and Thomas at events connected to the semiannual conservative conferences organized by Koch brothers David and Charles, generous donors to limited-government causes and the left’s favorite bogeymen. A much-publicized complaint against the justices, submitted to Attorney General Eric Holder by the longtime liberal advocacy group Common Cause, centers on these conferences.
Liberal critics are also up in arms over Justice Scalia’s closed-door talk this January to a bipartisan group of congressmen because it was organized by the House Tea Party Caucus. Justice Alito skipped the Hill lecture and Koch conference, but was denounced by the left for attending conservative fundraising events, including dinners for this magazine. Even Alito’s natural reaction to Obama’s State of the Union ambush — in which the Justice shook his head and mouthed “not true” — has been widely portrayed as evincing a lack of impartiality and professionalism.
Justice Thomas’s wife, Ginni, has also been a subject of the ethics assault. The left is obsessed with her past and current employment by organizations — conservative nonprofits and Liberty Consulting — that potentially benefit from Citizens United or oppose Obamacare. A group of 74 House Democrats led by the always theatrical Anthony Weiner (D-NY) cited these ties and a related error on Justice Thomas’s financial-disclosure reports in an accusatory letter asking the justice to “recuse yourself from any deliberations on the constitutionality of [Obamacare].”
No There There
THE ETHICAL CONSTRAINTS on the conduct of Supreme Court justices are murky and open to lots of interpretation. The relevant federal law requires a judge to recuse himself where “he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party,” “a financial [or other] interest in the subject matter in controversy,” or where “his impartiality might [otherwise] reasonably be questioned.” If that language were interpreted broadly enough, the activities of the conservative justices and virtually every other federal judge would run afoul of the law. But under common, reasonable interpretations of the law, the charges against Thomas, Scalia, and Alito come up short. It suffices to say, as Politico did, that “even liberal legal experts have brushed off the complaints as hollow.”
“[I]t is absurd for liberals to criticize the conservative justices for associating with people who share or reinforce their views,” writes Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman in a New York Times op-ed, just as it would be if conservatives attacked Justice Breyer “when he consorts with his numerous friends and former colleagues in the liberal bastion of Cambridge, Mass.” Similarly, a Washington Post editorial points out that the conservative justices “are not the only members of the high court who routinely enjoy all-expenses-paid excursions funded by third parties, including some that may be considered controversial.” The Post cites liberal justices Sotomayor, Breyer, and Ginsburg as examples.
Justice Ginsburg should be especially thankful that judicial ethics standards are interpreted in a relatively narrow manner. The list of her controversial excursions is long, and even the New York Times reported that her disclosure of potential conflicts has been less than exemplary.
Motivations
UNTIL THE RECENT assault on the ethics of conservative Supreme Court justices, the left had largely reserved the politics of personal destruction for judicial nominees, preferring less personal attacks on sitting judges. With so little substance behind the ethics charges, the question of what is motivating this escalation arises.
The stated goal of the mudslingers is recusal. Rep. Weiner and his colleagues want Justice Thomas to recuse himself when Obamacare reaches the Court. Common Cause goes even further, asking the Justice Department to consider filing a motion to vacate the Citizens United decision after investigating whether Thomas and Scalia should have recused themselves from the case because of the alleged conflicts of interest.
But recusal can’t be the endgame of this ethics campaign. Liberals know they have little hope of convincing Thomas to recuse himself in the Obamacare cases and even less hope of effecting retroactive recusal in Citizens United.
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), a former state judge, attributes the attacks in part to “a fundraising effort” by groups like Common Cause. While it’s true that the campaign against conservative justices is a money-maker for such groups, their motivations go much deeper.
Much of the impetus for this campaign is the left’s apoplectic rage at Citizens United. Former labor secretary Robert Reich, for example, sees it as “an illegitimate decision, arrived at by at least two justices who should never have participated in it.”
Letter to the Editor View all comments (56) | Leave a comment
More Articles From Constitutional Opinions
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/06/21/ganging-up-on-justices-thomas
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
The Bishop| 6.21.11 @ 6:29AM
Anthony Weiner leading the charge on conflict of interest and ethics allegations. What more needs to be said? Case closed.
Anthony| 6.21.11 @ 11:18AM
Yeah, what a hoot, alas, Anthony's Weiner will no longer be leading the charge of conflict of interest against these fine jurists. Anthony's Weiner is charging in another direction now.
However, like the locusts that the Ds are, there's always another to take up the cause, a la, Chris Murphy of CT, a Weiner of another sort, who tells his constituents what a "moderate" D he is. He even advertises on this site, the shameless bastard.
The left continues its relentless assault on all things conservative and decent about America. This will indeed finally come to an end, sooner rather than later.
I can see 2012 from my house!!!!
bohemian| 6.23.11 @ 2:39PM
Absolutely; even though he resigned, Republicans need to keep Weiner's face at the front of this issue and point and laugh. When the left charges conflict of interest, the Right needs to hammer back twice as hard. My money says that the scum Democrats (sorry -- redundant) have 10 times as many conflicts as the Right. Why? Because the left search high and low trying to dig up dirt, even making up stories when nothing is found, and what have they found? Largely, nothing. Also, the Right need to yell especially loudly about conflicts in cases involving gays, and the eligibility of Øbama. Neither of his appointees should sit on such cases.
Kenny| 6.21.11 @ 6:46AM
The Left attacks anyone and everyone who stands in their way of turning America into a socialistic society.
I only wish conservatives and Republicans would wise up to the game afoot and give absolutely no quarter to the liberals.
Gary| 6.21.11 @ 7:31AM
Kenny,
The Republicans will never wise up. It's not part of their plan.
I have a theory about the Republicans. I believe
they are most comfortable positioned as the minority party. From that perch, they can squawk all about how the Democrats don’t follow the Constitution and use all the bad news about Democrats to raise money. It’s their role in the DC Kabuki theater. It’s designed to convince us drones out here that they’re doing their best to make it all better. Meanwhile, they’re all going to the same cocktail parties with the Democrats and the press. In a word it’s incest at its perverted best.
And every time we allow the press to select the Republican candidate for president, we’re stuck voting for one more disgusting RINO as the lesser of evils. I’m beginning to think the only solution is to wreck the Republican Party with a third party Tea Party candidate. I mean, really, how else are we going to get their attention?
JP| 6.21.11 @ 9:37AM
Gary,
You do have good points. And don't look for the Senate GOP to defend Thomas or Scalia. Lugar, Graham, and Hatch are too worried about bi-partisan collegiality to trouble themselves with such things. If you remember, it was Sen Lugar who litterally sprinted to the mics after the Sotomayer hearings in order to be the first senator to endorse her. I can still remember how Lugar gushed on his offical website. One would think Sotomayer was the second comming of Joan of Arc.
And it was GOP senators who hung Bork out to dry. Yes, Kennedy et als were over the top; but, it was Senators Packwood and Spectre who really put the knife in Bork's back.
Thomas and Scalia are on thier own. And you won't hear a peep from Beltway Republicans.
Occam's Tool| 6.21.11 @ 7:44PM
Peckerwood and SPECTRE. Two fine Republicans (yuchhh...I believe they were Yankees....)
Southern_Comment| 6.22.11 @ 12:41AM
lol Occam - Yankees
CalMark| 6.21.11 @ 1:26PM
Dead-on. Except a new party has to happen spontaneously, as the result of a spontaneous GOP collapse, like the Whigs over slavery. In this country, third parties succeed only in electing the party you're trying to defeat.
"Kabuki" is exactly the right term. Most D.C. Republicans act like a phony, regime-sanctioned all-for-show "opposition" party in a dictatorship--and are ecstatic about it, because that means the big kids tolerate them in the club.
scythe| 6.21.11 @ 6:52AM
We can thank that avatar of deceit and skulduggery FDR for showing the way. I hope I live long enough for the majority in this country to have the same regard for FDR as they reserve for others who have maimed and harmed. The fact that he is still held up as one of the greats is testimony to the iron control that public education wields over shaping the opinions and ideas of the majority. We are still paying today for his historical treachery. The is but one example.
Paul Hilsenrath| 6.21.11 @ 8:28AM
So, let me see if I get this. Its okay for a homosexual judge, living with another homosexual man, in California to overturn a constitutional amendment against same sex marriage on the assumption that there is no conflict of interest but the conservative justices on the Court should recuse themselves because they attended some meetings or their wives work for some outfit that is against the left's agenda.
Did I get that right?
JP| 6.21.11 @ 9:56AM
Oh absolutely. And wait until the Left rachets up its attack machine in full. Thier spittle will spray the air waves; denunciatons from every major newspaper will fill the news stands; late night comedians will opine; the net roots heads will explode; and the Democrats in the Senate will demand year long, lengthy investigations. and the Left talking heads gums will flap into overdrive.
This is about the only thing the Left does well.
Gary| 6.21.11 @ 5:33PM
Having no credible solutions of their own (and why should they; they're in the wrecking business), personal attacks top their list.
How much talent does it take to slander someone when you have the entire press corps as a cheering section?
Southern_Comment| 6.22.11 @ 12:41AM
And Hollywood
geokstr| 6.25.11 @ 3:58PM
And academia...and the teachers unions...and the music industry...and book publishers and sellers...and ad nauseum. A mon0poly on all the dispensers of opinion and indocrination, for fifty years, until Fox, talk radio, and the internet came along to let this majority conservative country know that they were being hoodwinked the whole time by selective reporting and leftwing propaganda. The attack on our new media will be racheting up in the next year as well.
Anthony| 6.21.11 @ 11:34AM
Oh yeah, you got it right, along with Ed Morrissey, as to the proactive attack against these justices by the left, because Kagen has a real, substancial conflict of interest on Obamacare.
Also remember the Wisconsin hack, leftist, municipal court judge who opined on the collective bargining legislation, that was within the juridsiction of the Wisconsin Superior and Supreme Courts.
Everything is POLITICAL with the left. Nothing is sacred and no tactic too low to accomplish the task at hand, the destruction of America.
da monk| 6.21.11 @ 3:59PM
No Paul, you didn't get that right. Regarding the homosexual judge being prejudicial overturning a Constitutional amendment regarding gays. It seems to me you are intimating it is ok for a heterosexual judge to uphold the admendment because he is heterosexual and he would NOT hae a conflict of interest. You're not being logical or consistant. What's your take on female judges on male oriented cases? She they recuse themselves?
David| 6.21.11 @ 5:31PM
No.
And it would be okay for a heterosexual judge living with a heterosexual woman in California to affirm a "constitutional amendment against same sex marriage on the assumption that there is no conflict of interest ..."
Or is turnabout not fair play in the view of these posters?
Gary| 6.21.11 @ 5:42PM
How about the Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate who as much as declared her decision in advance regarding the union issue there? That was really cute, wasn't it?
As I've said previously, I lay the blame for a lot of this at the feet of judges who are supposed to be our last line of defense against political treachery. And, no, the Constitution is not a living document, just as a written contract is not a living document. Sure, there are different intrepretations requiring arugment, but so-called laws or presidential edicts in blatant violation of its written words are no-brainers, unless, of course, you don't have a brain.
David| 6.21.11 @ 5:55PM
Prosser = brain dead
Kloppenburg = brain dead
Different reasons, same result. And Wisconsin is the loser for it.
However, I am fascinated by the position that the Constitution is "dead." I'm pretty sure that going into court arguing a contract is not a living document would get one's point of view booted toute suite.
But assuming this to be true - What then do justices and attornies argue about - and I am SO tempted to then conclude the judiciary and bar are nothing but carrion pickers? What credence can each new generation give to it? Seems to me that one (and only one - there are many) of the miraculous features of the Constitution is that it has served the needs of a changing country in a changing world so very well. While the framers were amazingly brilliant men, how could they possibly envisioned this world that we have today? How can the Constitution continue to have any meaning if it's dead?
CDT| 6.23.11 @ 6:14PM
Wow, what an incredibly wondrous example of a false dichotomy. You are to be commended for such a fine example. I shall copy it so if I am ever asked to explain it, I'll have the perfect example.
There is a difference between a "living document" in the sense of it being "still in force" and it being "fungible." The latter being how the Liberals have taken it to mean "anything they want it to mean."
Example: When our tender sensibilities find that hanging is "cruel and unusual punishment." That is interpreting the Constitution as a "living document," where it may be interpreted to mean anything they damn well please.
Cruel and usual punishment means what it meant at the time, not what it may mean to us today. We cannot boil someone in oil, as well as a list of other cruel and usual punishments that were cruel and unusual at the time of the Founders. Hanging was not cruel and unusual at the time. It was a common method of execution at the time the document was signed. Period. Full Stop. You can't interpret the document to mean what you'd like it to mean today based on how people think about cruel and usual today. It is what those words meant then, not what those words mean to you today. If we wish to extend that to hanging, we have the Amendment process. To the extent of having a "living document" we have the Amendment process, if we wish to alter the original.
No one would think of any other contract as being fungible in the way they do the Constitution. If you have a lease for an apartment, no one would think of it as being proper for the landlord to decide to make your rent 3-times the rate that was agreed to, without your agreeing to the change, simply by stating, well, it is a "living agreement." You'd be laughed out of the courtroom. If you said, "but our Constitution is treated that way" it wouldn't help your case.
Few people have issue with putting an Amendment to The People, what people DO a problem with is putting it to the backdoor of an activist judge, and removing The People from the process. THAT is what makes everyone furious and why we have a political chasm in this country. If you want your [insert issue here] thing passed, GREAT, put it to The People, but don't try to do your Unconstitutional deed by cheating the marvelous system designed by The Founders.
As Scalia put it: The Constitution is neither living nor dead. It "endures."
Here's my personal favorite:
"If the Constitution is to be construed to mean what the majority at any given period in history wish the Constitution to mean, why a written Constitution?"
Frank J. Hogan, President, American Bar Association, 1939
What is clear is that most issues that are passed using activist judges would never be passed if done the proper way: Getting a Constitutional Amendment passed that would allow the government to act on the matter. So what does that tell you if it isn't done that way? Is says to me that The People really don't agree on what the activist judges are doing, and the people who are using that method know that. Otherwise, why go that route? If 75% of the states agree that it is the right thing to do, why cheat the system?
First and foremost, we are a nation of laws, in all, unfortunately, but our Constitution, and We, The People cannot seem to regain control of it -- and that saddens me to to no end. I hope that in 2012 we are able to elect a President who takes an Oath to "respect and defend" and then actually does it... for the first time in over 200 years.
When someone like myself says things like the above, I'm the one who sounds like some sort of right-wing lunatic -- all that's missing is the sandwich board and the bell to complete the look. Well, that's what happens to people who say things like that. But truth-be-told, I'm not the crazy one, and anyone who doesn't agree with me, and anyone who does try to paint me as anything but sane is the one who should be sneered at, pointed at, and shunned... but I'm not holding my breath.
Petronius| 6.21.11 @ 8:48AM
Retention elections of Federal Judges might put a stop to their role as deus ex machina.
Tina B| 6.21.11 @ 8:49AM
Yes, and more is the pity.
Try to remember (and I have to remind myself of this regularly). Black is white, up is down and evil is really good.
Darkness is coming for many. Do you know the True Light?
David| 6.21.11 @ 6:11PM
Yes! Oh, yes! And he is Pastor Nehemiah Scudder, leader of the flock at the Free Evangelical Church of Shawano, Wisconsin!!! Blessed be His Name who will show the True Light for all sinners!!
Bless you for sharing, Sister.
Occam's Tool| 6.21.11 @ 7:46PM
David,
Heinlein didn't have much time for Liberals.
David| 6.21.11 @ 9:01PM
Heinlein? The liquor importer or the writer?
Bill Diebold| 6.21.11 @ 10:57AM
...the marxist and the liberal rabble can see the end coming for them and they're getting more and more desperate...
Anthony| 6.21.11 @ 10:57AM
The entire leftist establishment is illegitimate. They are on a scorched earth quest to rid America of the Constitution and turn our Republic into a 3rd world socialist banana republic.
I agree with the above posters, the R party is useless and feckless. They need to be tossed along with the left.
When will we stop pussyfooting with these bastards and start with the slaps upside the head?
ShalomMetsJets| 6.21.11 @ 11:21AM
Taken to the logical extreme, no justice could decide the case on Obamacare because all justices, in some way or another, either personally, or through family members, will use health case services.
Regardless, the arguments for Thomas's recusal are weak. Those for Kagan's recusal are strong, since she crafted the arguments that will be made at the Supreme Court when the cases get there.
Al Adab| 6.21.11 @ 12:33PM
Will Kagen recuse?
Will Darth Vader Ginsberg recuse?
The Left only sees conflicts when they are losing. Nothing must get in the way of pushing their agenda, not Law, not precedent and certainly not ethics. It's all about winning, not governing well or being right.
da monk| 6.21.11 @ 4:32PM
Al Adab: And you're not about winning?
Drunken Sailor| 6.21.11 @ 4:35PM
I know you missed it but it is more about what is right. And that would be for the majority, not the overly vocal minority.
Al Adab| 6.21.11 @ 6:11PM
Thanks Sailor and BTW Monk, while I prefer to win, doing so at all costs or electing say Romney would only serve to witness the GOP get the blame for the collapse of America. Conservatives, not Republicans still have a chance to save it, but the victory of "moderates will deliver the same policy results. If America must fail it is best that history records just who, just which philosophy sold it down the river. That way future generations might study Liberty and rediscovetr it someday.
David| 6.21.11 @ 7:03PM
It's fascinating to me that your argument is EXACTLY what I heard among Leftist students at UW-Madison in the mid-70's. Better to be morally perfect than win, better to go down in flames than compromise, better that history record their good intentions than their deeds.
And what makes you think that if the U.S. goes this Valhalla route of yours, there'll be any history to teach your lessons?
And I'll save you some of your hand-wringing - I already blame the GOP for the shape this country is in.
Al Adab| 6.21.11 @ 7:24PM
The GOP, as you note, deserves a great deal of the blame. That is exact;y why I argue as i do. Never confuse the GOP with Conservatives and remember Cato.
David| 6.21.11 @ 10:11PM
The Institute or the Roman orator?
Nick| 6.21.11 @ 1:58PM
This type of attack, or should I say manipulation is not unprecedented. In any case however, the Repubs better figure out this is not 'our father's' democratic party....this is for the survival of our culture and our civil society. It is NOT a function of compromise at this point. The Dems have been taking advantage of that dynamic for decades. We are in a civil battle here for our very Nation. We had better be ready fight for what we believe...relentlessly.
TrueBlue| 6.21.11 @ 4:57PM
It does both amuse and disgust me that it's always the Repubs that have to do the compromising, never the Dems when it comes to any social issue.
David| 6.21.11 @ 5:41PM
I want my Supreme Court justices to be above, all, brilliant scholars and thinkers. Although I find their activism in the application of law to the Constitution outrageous, Alioto and Roberts are brilliant scholars and thinkers. From what I can gather, they are relentless in their research and opinions.
Clarence Thomas fails that test. He's lazy. He's quoted as believing a "good legal brief reminds him of the TV show '24.'"
"That contrasts with Thomas, who, when asked by interviewer Bryan Garner whether he would describe himself as a word lover, replied: 'Not particularly. ... I like buses and football and cars.'"
Thomas noted that he was raised speaking a dialect called Geechee and wasn't comfortable speaking standard English until he was in his 20s."
(Parenthetically, why wasn't there a hue and cry to see HIS birth certificate during his confirmation hearing?)
He's ineffective and finds scholarship to be a bore. Here's a link since posters all clamor for "proof." I hesitate to put it up here because it's from National Public Radio and all good Righties "know" that NPR can't possibly tell the truth. Right? Right? (By the way, I completely support the ending of federal funding for NPR so we don't have to waste any more time on that issue. I'll just up my contributions.)
So, in the For What It's Worth Department, here it is: http://www.npr.org/2011/06/13/.....tices-say.
Gary| 6.21.11 @ 5:55PM
So, David, is any other justice not up to the job, or is Thomas the only one?
Just so you know, I normally agree with the conservatives on the court, but there is one issue where I think they're selling America down the river. It has to do with misconduct by prosecutors. On that issue they are 100% wrong.
geokstr| 6.25.11 @ 4:35PM
Is there a requirement under the Constitution (you know, that worthless piece of scrap paper written by slave-owming DWEMs) that Supreme Court Justices be natural born citizens, leftling? What a stupid comment.
David| 6.21.11 @ 6:05PM
Thomas certainly stands out for his lack of rigor on the bench. He is alone, in my view, on being unfit for the highest court. And that's regardless of his politics - that's a judgment (sorry) based on intellect and the exercise of same.
Do I find some of the recent decisions abhorrent? You bet. And you'd be right if you said my list started with Citizens United and the 2nd Amendment decisions. But I do believe that people of good faith can disagree.
But the point of your question is not information, is it? It's to "smoke out" that I find all of the conservatives lacking. Not so. Read the first paragraph. I may disagree but I respect the authority of a well-crafted, well-documented argument. I do find Scalia and Kennedy a little scary in their activism and their snarkiness in questioning during the oral arguments.
That's why, unlike the kneejerk posts that I read here about a particularly offensive decision, I always say that I have to read at least the preamble and opening sections to really get a sense of what's been decided. Supreme Court decisions are not at all amenable to "sound bites" (whether on FOX, CNN, or MSNBC by the way). And that's a good thing.
Gary| 6.21.11 @ 6:22PM
David,
I was not trying to smoke you out. I don't believe the Supreme Court serves the country well. They often render half decisions, kicking back very important issues that have taken years to get there. They often behave as if they're afraid to deliver full and complete closure on cases the entire country is anxious have settled. In such a manner they resemble politicians - a thing they're not supposed to do, else why give them life terms?
It's frustrating in the extreme to me. I guess I'd like to see a mission statement from them. I mean, really, what's their job? To promote further confusion or to judge?
David| 6.21.11 @ 6:46PM
Sorry, a little gun shy on being trolled on this site.
Yes, the Supreme Court is ambiguous. A cosmic rule is a 5-4 decision? That's something to keep you up at night.
In some respects, I don't mind that. If it were just a matter of checking these boxes and flipping a switch, that might be clearer and faster but I'm not sure it'd be good law. The problem with democracy/federal republicanism/whatever label you want is that it's messy. Totalitarianism, on the other hand whether of the Left or Right variety, is temptingly easy - Do it the ruling class's way.
Or as H.L. Mencken, one of the Muckrakers of the early 20th century, "The only good thing about democracy is that it's eight times better than any other form of goverment."
As for shipping decisions back to lower courts, some of the work done by lower courts is embarrassing in its sloppiness and its incomplete nature. Some of the decisions handed up are nothing more than political agendas (both Left and Right, I grant you).
Sorry I can't be more definitive but I think that's the case (pun intended).
I think it was Daniel Hildebrant of the University of Wisconsin Law School who said, "It may be gibberish but it's the law."
Gary| 6.21.11 @ 8:05PM
"It may be gibberish but it's the law" may have been his take on it, but that's not sufficient for a public that longs for clarity.
I agree some issues need to be thrashed out ad nauseam and deserve to be kicked back, but some issues that are tossed back have taken years grinding through multiple layers on their way to the top court only to have a half answer make it out into the daylight.
And, as I mentioned, some decisions, seemingly manufactured with tortured reasoning in support of some agenda, are flat out contrary to the concept of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Any sixth-grader knows what's fair and what isn't. Grant it, the law may be gibberish in some matters, but when it comes to confiscation of private property without due process or blatant prosecutorial misconduct that puts innocent people in prison, they fail in their sworn duty.
Harry Browne had it right. During his presidential campaign when he was asked how he would select candidates for the court responded that his first requirement would be that his nominees be able to read. I guess he was weary of justices who seemed utterly confused by the Constitution, as am I.
Gary| 6.21.11 @ 8:51PM
I mean I'm weary not confused. It's all there and it's meaning is pretty clear.
David| 6.21.11 @ 9:07PM
I understand, Gary, I do. And I'm not advocating delay for delay's sake. And the old,old, old English common law dictum was that it had to be clear to the common man or it had to be rejected. I like that idea but, unfortunately, this ain't merry old England.
And, often, law seems to be niggling over a syllable rather than big principles of right and wrong. It's galling, I agree.
Join | 6.22.11 @ 2:14AM
It's good to see this information in your post, i was looking the same but there was not any proper resource, thanx now i have the link which i was looking for my research.
weddingdresses | 6.22.11 @ 5:45AM
I understand, Gary, I do. And I'm not advocating delay for delay's sake. And the old,old, old English common law dictum was that it had to be clear to the common man or it had to be rejected. I like that idea but, unfortunately, this ain't merry old England.
And, often, law seems to be niggling over a syllable rather than big principles of right and wrong. It's galling, I agree.
Chris Pedersen| 6.23.11 @ 1:06AM
The Libs are as shallow as a thimble of piss!
Chris Pedersen| 6.23.11 @ 1:16AM
The Libs are as shallow as a thimble of piss!
Charlie | 6.25.11 @ 3:47PM
The left of which I am a member usually disagrees with the justices named in this piece. Looking at them individually Scalia (in my estimation) the most conservative of the justices is also one of the most able to explain a decision and should be on the court. On the other hand Thomas should be impeached for not reclusing himself when there has been financial dealings with those most affected or advocating for a ruling. He in my estimation has never been a compitent judge. I don't have to agree with a decision because like others who don't have the obligation to be fair I don't have to. Those that are charged with the duty should be. I only have one question where in the constitution does it say corporations have any rights including those of a single citizen. Even better where is the word corporation used even once?