I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives -- whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation.
I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes. I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is incoherent gibberish. If a judge is to determine "just decisions and outcomes," he or she must necessarily legislate from the bench. If a judge is "dedicated to the rule of law," he or she must have enough respect for the lawmaking process, which is the purview of the legislative branch, to not attempt to determine outcomes.
I know, I know -- that ship sailed a long damned time ago, maybe even during Marbury v. Madison, but it's striking to hear a President actually say that he expects a Supreme Court justice to determine outcomes. Not their job, Mr. President. If you think it is, why not just put Henry Waxman or Barney Frank on the Court and be done with it?
5 comments:
i come from the point of view that constitutional decisions should reflect the original intent of those who enacted and approved the constitutional provisions, as seen through the understanding of a junior high govt class.
example: only a harvard lawyer can be led to believe that the 2A doesnt mean exactly what every 8th grader understands it to mean.
We are left with Kennedy for now. It would be nice to see another that is like him be added. He has been alone in the middle since Sandra left a few years ago. The court is balanced now and that is nice to have.
"Good" outcomes are only good for some. For others they are bad. Rule of law means that we can count on the rules to the game. And we can work within the system of government to change those rules lawfully.
President Obama is pledging to appoint someone who will cheat. Half of this country will applaud. Will they applaud when the court takes away their rights?
I dunno, prailbird. Balanced between what? I'd rather not have the Court making legislative decisions and Kennedy is really into that sort of thing.
Gino,
I don't know who said it initially (the quote is usually attributed to Orwell), but there are some things so ridiculous that only an intellectual could believe them.
WBP,
Exactly.
The balance between left and right. We know that there are four conservative judges, and we know that there are four liberal judges that make up the Court right now. Kennedy was the only one that when a case goes before the Court we may not know how he is going to rule on it. We more or less know how the rest of the Nine are going decide. I will look into Kennedy legislating from his Seat. I do agree that is not the correct way for judges to handles law. They should be interpreting the law.
Post a Comment