Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IJ Reilly, Mar 24, 2005.
Good article IJ.
Still, I have to wonder if it is worth it's own thread, considering we already have two threads regarding Mrs. Shiavo which have considerable breadth of discussion. This may further fragment discussion.
Of course, I may be wrong, we'll see how this plays out.
With reference to this article/topic, I will say that it is more troubling to me that the GOP position regarding courts and/or government intervention in state/private affairs is so lacking in consistency and integrity, than any particular position they might hold.
After all, the former puts the very viability and credibility of our system of governance at risk. The latter, while agreeable or not (whatever it might be), by virtue of being consistent, is at least defineable.
I hesitated making a new thread of this, but I think it's an important issue on its own right, so even though it was thrown off by the Schiavo mess, I thought in the end it was a separate discussion. For my part, I don't think this is a "new" issue at all. I believe the Right has always defined "judicial activism" in the narrowest possible way, including in it only judicial decisions that don't advance their ideology. We've discussed this question before, especially in reference to Justice Scalia, who doesn't appear to hesitate to make law from the bench or to argue against long-stand principles of jurisprudence when it suits him.
At the risk of dialating the topic, I read an interesting article about Rehnquist in the latest issue of Atlantic. Among other things, there are a few interesting points made:
- If 'Judicial Activism' is defined by a judge's willingness to strike down state and federal law(s), then Scalia and Thomas are among the most activist judges (so is Sandra Day O'Conner btw). Yet, mant feel upon Rehnquist's eventual retirement, that Scalia will be pushed for as Chief Justice by the Bush Administration. How's that for irony?
- In reference to your quote, Thomas is even worse than Scalia. Thomas refuses to accept decisions that he feels are wrong, something even Scalia criticizes him for. Scalia has been quoted as saying that Thomas "does not believe in stasis decisis, period. This is remarkable considering we are talking about a permanent Judge in our nation's highest court.
- That Rehnquist, is an older type of Conservative (of the Goldwater mold), whose pragmatism is made out to be impurity by the new Conservative ideologues. If the new Chief Justice turns out to be a rigid ideologue (like Scalia, and especially Thomas), then there is a good chance that the Court will become divided, ineffective and lose the public's trust - an essential component to a helathy judicial system. I am deeply afraid of this potentiality, than of any particular ruling that may come. I think everyone should be, regardless of where their opinions lie.