Skip to main content

View Diary: States rights (135 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Burden of proof issues aside.... (none)
    I take your response to be that the ABA rating is indicative of their strict constructionist nature. By that measure, there is nearly no such thing as an activist on the federal bench at all, because the vast majority of them received positive ratings from the ABA.

    I'm not understanding how one arrives at the conclusion of who is an activist judge and who isn't - unless of course we're just using the talking points of either party.

    IMO, there is far too much political rhetoric and not enough legal analysis in the debate over judges. I don't disagree that the ABA rating system is a positive thing. I would like to see some support for the proposition that Bush's nominees are strict constructionists - the President's rhetoric aside.

    •  Activism is in the eye of the beholder (none)
      All of it is rhetoric by both sides. The legal community has endorsed these judges with positive to excellent jurist ratings and that should be enough for those who oppose their nominations.

      There is a belief that they will be strict constitutionalists based on their personal testimony and opinions, but there is no hard evidence for this.

      There is no reason to suppose that conservative judges will be any more activist than their liberal counterparts. Owens, Brown and Pryor are good judges and all deserve confirmation. Sure they had cases before them where they may have ruled in favor of a conservative issue, but they all have also faced cases where they ruled in favor of liberal issues. It was all based on the evidence in the individual cases.

      •  Show me one case (none)
        where Owen has given a liberal ruling, not simply the result.

        Pryor has at times been a conservative centrist, that is, rejected right-wing activism to follow precedent.  The Terri Schiavo case is one, but I am 99% sure that had he been already confirmed, Pryor would have voted the other way.  

        Brown is an activist right-winger on everything but criminal procedure, where she makes her hatred of "big government" known by siding with defendants sometimes.  Still her methods are activist even in those cases.

        You are a Freeper with Rethug talking points.  

        •  Typical close-minded stuff (none)
          Here is just one example of Judge Owen's liberal rulings: Hernandez vs Tokai Corp (2 S.W.3d 251 Texas 1999) She ruled that the Tokai Corp had to ensure that cigarette lighters be child-resistant even though they are only marketed to adults.

          Every judge has both liberal and conservative rulings, which are based on the evidence presented before them for that case alone. The only thing that should matter is whether the ABA believes they are good jurists, based on whether they are fair, uphold case law and precedent, etc.

          I don't apply any labels to myself nor you. Applying offensive terminology such as "Freeper" is the sign of a closed mind.

          •  Don't give me such bullshit (none)
            "I don't apply any labels to myself nor you. Applying offensive terminology such as "Freeper" is the sign of a closed mind."

            This is a Democratic blog.  If you are a wingnut, W or Rethug supporter, you are not wanted here and you are a troll.

            Your views on judges are fully wingnuttery.  My suspicion is that you are a W supporter.  If so you are unwanted here.

            •  Democrats are inclusive? (none)
              I happen to be a Democrat, a minority, and a lawyer (does that make me less than human?). I side with the Democratic party platform on all issues except self-defense, gun rights and obviously judicial appointments.

              Just because you don't have anything more constructive to say on the issue of judicial appointments, don't take it out on me.

              Go learn more about what it means to be a judge and what it means to be a good one.

              •  Quite frankly I think you are a Rethug (none)
                who is pretending to be a Democrat and a minority.

                But I did preface with an "If you are a wingnut, W or Rethug supporter, you are not wanted here."

                Regardless, your views on judicial appointments place you well outside the Democratic platform.

                Under your(Owen and Brown's, since you think they are good judges) judicial philosophy, Griswold is bad law, the New Deal should be found unconstitutional, Social Security is unconstitutional, environmental protection is unconstitutional, and anything opposing big business is unconstitutional.  Thus the entire Democratic platform, should it be enacted into law, in unconstitutional.  Of course the worst judge to ever sit on any bench is Clarence Thomas, who is both unqualified, as well as a pure right-wing activist.  His decision yesterday was an example of that activism, with some pragmatism in that to advance his legal agenda.
                Do you believe that Bush v Gore was strict constructionism?  What about all the religion cases where your heroes sided with the fundies?

                As far what it is to be a good judge, I don't need your scolding, rather I've given good examples, William Douglas, William Brennan, and Jack Weinstein, who was recommended for appointment by my political hero, Robert F. Kennedy(whom the article claims may have appointed Weinstein to the Supreme Court had he lived to become President).  These guys are great heroes and opened the doors to many people previously shut out.  That is the hallmark and legacy of liberalism.  Chances are, if you indeed are a minority and a Democrat, you(or your parents or grandparents) have been helped in some way by some of the "activist" decisions of these great heroes.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site