Login Here
In a recent study of justices on the Supreme Court of the United States, guess which justices were the most "activist" in terms of willingness to wholly overturn or disregard precedents? I'll give you one guess:
A new study supports our fears: Supreme Court nominees present themselves one way at confirmation hearings but act differently on the court. That makes it difficult for senators to cast informed votes or for the public to play a meaningful role in the process....
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, for example, told the Senate that they had strong respect for Supreme Court precedents. On the court they were the justices most likely to vote to overturn those precedents. Justice David Souter deferred more to precedent than his Senate testimony suggested he would.
So much for the conservative "legislating from the bench" canard of branding liberals as activists, eh? Despite the occasional lapse of honesty about what is going on with conservative jurists attempting to force their own worldview on the rest of us from the bench, the false branding really needs to be questioned. I agree with Dahlia Lithwick that the "conservative" brand needs a new name, and I kind of like her "re-activist judges" branding, but I'm not married to it. Suggestions?
Next time some pundit brings up those "liberal activist judges," we should all just laugh. A lot. Because the thought that folks like Scalia and Thomas aren't trying to influence policy from the bench? That's simply laughable.
PS -- Oh, the karma: look who is having difficulty finding a job after obfuscating and dodging for a living to provide Bush WHCYA? Guess "expert at saying 'I don't recall, Senator.' " isn't exactly in high demand these days, eh?
Share This 
Spotlight
zed
christy, please excuse the early OT, just want to make sure folks know that rice is now testifying before the house armed services committee (c-span3).
Still love this vid posted on a First Monday thread that vividly portrays the Activist Judge Canard.
Thanks!
Leave out the hyphen. Also, impeach those who lie during their confirmations.
Christy,
Thanks for reminding us of the importance of the Supreme Court while people are focusing on their favorite candidate. I can’t help thinking that much of what Bush has done will be tried in the Supreme Court during the next administration and that new appointments will be of the highest level of importance.
Regarding Gonzo, maybe he just couldn’t recall sending out all those job applicaitons.
Hi Christy. Terrific post. Keep pounding on em.
Dishonest, divisive, intrusive, overriding, biased, skewed, crusading, agenda-pushing,
noneoftheabove? There’s gotta be something.
Fascist would be more accurate but in this country the media and political establishment have a great reluctance to call the Right what it is.
warped?
Thanx for the heads up, selise. Looks like a triple header- Rice, Gates, & Mullen. Big fun. Or not.
Isn’t the HJC hearing testimony from Glenn Fine today as well?
How about Unprecedenting Judges?
yes, this afternoon. i posted info on 3 of today’s hearings in an earlier thread (or click my name if you want the complete list for the week).
chairman of the joint chiefs of staff mullen is up now.
OT: Per Wil Bunch, Obama would consider prosecuting Bushies: http://www.philly.com/philly/b.....rture.html
IOKIYAR? It’s OK if you are reactionary.
selise. thanks much for keeping track and helping us do so more easily ;->
Considering the current “elitist” discussion, so to speak, and the comments about judges, it is time to dust off the old quote from Sen. Roman Hruska when Nixon nominated Haynesworth and Carswell to the Supreme Court. Regarding Carswell, the Nebraska senator said —
In defense against charges that Carswell was “mediocre”, U.S. Senator Roman Hruska stated, “Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they, and a little chance?”
(I guess we’ve exceeded that with a President, where “mediocre” might have been acceptable.)
Forgot my manners- Good morning, Christy, & thanks for the excellent post.
Fredo having trouble finding a law firm that wants him on the roles? Has he tried over @ Wolfram & Hart, they used to always be looking for new talent /s/
Summer is just around the corner. Mr. Gonzales should mow lawns until something better comes along.
gonna betcha he couldn’t mow a straight line if ‘is life depended on it./s
Oh yes, the Supreme Court DOES matter. This was my primary objection to Bush back in 2000.
Christy, did you see the op-ed in the WAPOO today scolding the Democrats in the Senate for not approving Bush’s judges for the lower courts? They all deserve an up or down vote, dontcha know.
I had heard about AG, and I do believe in karma. I also know that sometimes it takes it its own sweet time to ramp up (the karma that is). I await (anxiously) the fulfillment of the rest of its assigned tasks, and I hope I am here to see some of it. There is much needs to be done.
Yeah — Fred Hiatt can kiss my…
Here’s the thing about Abu G. Like just about every toady Bush collected, he was used and tossed out like an old banana skin. I’m not sorry for him; he got what he paid for, but you’d think other people would wisen up to the gig.
Justices Scalia, Roberts and Thomas are academic politicians. It is a source of consternation to me how unimaginative and uncreative a schematic the USA has developed for appellate judges. Go to a top ten law school (by taking speed tests well and doing well in college), get on law review, clerk for a circuit appellate judge, then try to go to the Supreme Court clerkship, then go to a government job, maybe a big law firm, really same difference. Make no waves. Make no waves. Make no waves. Be a politician.
Remember Earl Warren, an experienced trial and criminal attorney appointed by Eisenhower. Warren knew how criminal defendants got it, especially poor ones. He did the right thing and acted as a judge when he got the chance, all based on his EXPERIENCE. Scalia does not have any experience worth a damn, same for Thomas and Roberts. These guys are so mediocre in every way, actually. They really live lives avoiding risk at every turn.
grits?
Lipstick on a pig from Condi,Gates, and Mullen?
Things are going well, civilian contractors work better, we are sending accountants to Baghdad, and State Department just fine…
Condi doesn’t know her head from her rear and will go down as the least effective NSC and Secretary of State. Chief enabler.
Gonzo’s just looking for temp work until the Bush Amusement Park / Library opens for business. He’ll be a tour guide there.
Local wag provides his take on same:
Borrowing from Nixon, when a Conservative Justice does it, that means that it’s not activist.
CHS, sell tickets. You could raise big bucks, you could then donate to the cause of your choice.
I’d pay to see it.
I’d pay double if he kissed Jane’s too.
OK, I think I get the difference. Liberal “activist judges” want to “legislate from the bench”.
This is different from Conservative re-activist judges who simply want to enact all of the laws the founding fathers MEANT to put into the constitution but never got around to actually writing down or verbalizing.
You must be this honest to get on this ride.
-G
I remember a similar report was released (same group maybe?) just before the 04 Selection. Only heard it covered on Air America, community radio, some blogs, etc, yet nary a mention in Conglomerate Media. Yet, BigMedia allowed a parade of pundits to repeat constantly the “Liberal activist judge” nonsense. In fact, just had a conversation yesterday with a business colleague where he was convinced that Liberal judges are destroying the Constitution. So weird considering how smart and together the guy is otherwise. (He said he was gonna check out FDL…we’ll see…)
Just shows how important it is to control the message on a mass scale. We must increase our audience share in the New Media, and continue to wrest control of the message from BigMedia.
Would he be able to remember his way around?
Somehow, I think Fred and L’il Debbie would prefer to avoid Jane and I. *g*
“legislation from the bench” is a rediculous term in the first place
the very purose of the bench is to decide if a law is or is not valid.
you cannot say a law is not valid unless you are legislating as a judge, you cannot even say a law is valid unless you are legislating from your position on the bench
Christy -
did ya see this yesterday ? - Guam drops Greenberg Traurig Indictment
Mornin’ All
Ahhhh — Greenberg settled, did they? Good move on their part…
If we take care of business in November, much of this will sort itself out.
As Mr. Dooley noted long ago, “Th’ Supreme Coort follows the iliction returns.”
Of course, as Mr. Dooley also noted it isn’t helpful when ” th’ dimmycratic party ain’t on speaking terms with itsilf.”
this is just a pic to lift your spirits…its so cute
http://img505.imageshack.us/im.....checr4.jpg
Yeah, and what do we call the conservatives who praise the free market but love them some government handouts when they can get them, and stomp their little feet when they don’t?
On Dan Abrams’ new show Verdict, Dan covered the Obama Bitters. Dan said that much hay is being made on the story on account of no other news to report.
first time in my life,im frightened of my government
you must be pretty young
hahahahahahahaa,thats a lawyer? what a dolt!
They are called “Republics”.
“welfare queens”?
Wow. Let me see. If I have the choice between parsing what Obama meant by the word “bitter” and reporting that the President of the United States admitted that he not only knew that torture was being discussed by the Gang of xxx(the number keeps changing, I know), but that he ‘approved’ it, which one would I choose. Jeeze, it’s just too hard.
im not,but ive always felt,there were SOME reasonable people at thehelm….if you could name 1 in this administration,id like to know it,add in the corrupt corporate media
Do yourself a favor and go read this from TBogg. But put down all liquids before clicking…you have been warned.
Fitz
I read the quote, it a non promise promise, like his non promise to go to public campaign finance in the general election. It aspirational rather than concrete. I found this quote from Obama more interesting
[emphasis mine]
If we don’t have exceptional circumstance right now, I cannot imagine what would qualify in his mind.
Nope, I don’t see much help there. Read the entire quote from Obama in the article, it promise nothing.
Lieberdouche.
-G
Or just Repubes.
I like the queens part. How bout welfare toddlers? Because they throw tantrums….
There are those that reap the benefits directly and those that work in Media whom are paid to push that deceitful agenda. Pigs at the Trough and Media Whores.
Then, there are white bread Republican voters who hug their guns, and bibles and hate all immigrants except their own great-grandparents.
Hi Raven.
was thinkin somethin along those lines here too…
way back when, i thot we’d learned our lesson.
naive then. guilty as charged. never. trust. again.
Hey Abu !
these folks are always hiring and Paraguay is in the mix :D
Dear Abu:
I know of a firm here in Indianapolis looking for an administrative assistant. Requirements include a High School diploma and two years’ experience in the legal field.
Maybe they’ll let you slide on the legal experience requirement.
Agreed. I guess the only consolation we have is that he hasn’t taken it off the table.
I wonder, though, if part of the problem is that Pelosi and the House have handicapped the candidates here - if it were bad, why didn’t they start the investigation? They have the power.
I also hope (futile and vain though it might be) that he’s playing this close to the chest so as to not give ammunition to the Might Wurlitzer or anyone else who’d take anything he said concrete in this arena and tie it to his terrorist name and create a huge distraction that hampers his ability to do anything, including getting elected. I don’t think his first act after taking the oath of office will be to declassify the Bush garbage and appoint a SP to investigate, but I can always hope.
Gotta play the politics to get to the point where he can really do something.
goodgawd. can we start the poo-throwing yet? or is it too late…
depends on the target for sure. FORE!
I’m not especially afraid but I don’t misunderestimate anything. 38 years ago next week, “We’re finally on our own”.
I’m ready
Ouch.
Actually, I think the leadership in both houses has been handicapped on this by the sentiment of the majority of the members. It’s convenient to put the onus on this on the top, but that sentiment, from what I know of it, comes from a number of levels at once — not just the leadership. And not putting the blame on the bulk of the caucus who said “nuh uh” isn’t a fair reading of how things have worked with this. Just my two cents, but the Blue Dogs and a large number of other “moderates” ought to be asked why, exactly, they find their constitutional duty so distasteful that it is avoided altogether.
i think i get it all right, Raven. no. it’s different from fear. deeper. angrier. at least in this house.
Don’t let it eat you up. . .
Israel and Iran are ramping up the rhetoric.
Damn, the Middle East is so much safer since the Bush/neo-con strategy was implemented.
-G
Christy - every time one of these new items comes up(the latest being Bush’s admitting that he approved torture), I write Nancy, my rep, Hillary and Chuck letters saying, “May the American People have their Impeachment, NOW? No responses to those letters yet.
Good morning, Christy.
‘That’ was an eye-full …
Perhaps sunglasses should be prohibited at beaches, I mean who knows what goes on behind those things …
The fact that he is not going to public campaign financing in the general, after making a much stronger non promise promise o that issue, tells me this is just pandering.
For me, he is all about aspirational talk and “we’ll look into that and come a decision” and not very concrete. One of the few things he has allowed himself to be pinned down on , is that his health care plan is NOT universal.
So, basically, I don’t actually know where he stands on a lot of things (including bringing the troops home-when , how many) and the few concrete things I do know about like universal health care and public financing of campaigns–I disagree with him on.
I don’t need castles in the air, I need concrete proposals that I can sink my teeth into. I don’t need hope, I will supply my own hope thank you very much, I need an actual plan
You cannot open the mail when all of your time is devoted to keeping impeachment off the table.
do you think that taking impeachment off the table at the start was not a leadership decision?
…. the thing that makes me especially angry at the leadership is the way they attempt to keep the progressive wing of the congress in check while using the blue dogs as an excuse.
I could not agree more. Though I never hesitate to vent at pelosi, if she were the only Dem in the House holding her misguided view, she would not be able to keep impeachment off the table.
Every dem candidate ought to be hammered on impeachment at ever campaign appearance, we should be asking the question over and over
Just another example of ace Sec’y of State Condi in action.
If we had the courage of impeachment, we’d be talking about ‘former justice’ X, Y, Z (fill in the blank), whose presence on the bench represents a misdemeanor …
From what I’ve heard, there was a lot of discussion among the entire caucus, not just a top down imposition from the leadership. So, no, I don’t think it was just from the top…not at all.
Which is why every time someone blames only the leadership, I say that the blame shouldn’t just go on them. It’s awfully convenient for the folks in the caucus who were too skittish to do the work on this to have the leadership get the blame, though, isn’t it? Which always leads me to wonder if there wasn’t a bit of Rahm’s hand in the mix pushing all of this — with his long-term desire for the Speaker’s chair always looming int he background in any analysis of what’s going on behind the scenes for me, it always makes me wonder what’s in it for him, ya know?
But I haven’t been able to dig up anything concrete on that particular issue, so it’s still a surmise and not an absolute…
re-activist judges = (John Roberts and) the “stare-decisis destroyers”
(apologies to George Thorogood)
LHP - I’d love one of these folks to just say, “Listen, right now, this country is in one hell of a mess; we’ve got a president who approved torture, a vice president who thinks that his opinion on everything is the one that matters, a DOJ that is filled with shills and panderers, a bunch of people in senior positions in government who are either incompetant, malevolent or both, and a Supreme Court that no one trusts to mete out justice. I think we need to throw some sunlight on all of this.”
In addition to the importance of the Supreme Court, Bushie has stacked all of the federal courts in his favor/world view. I can hardly fathom the overhaul that needs to take place in this government. Just as the Repugs plotted their destruction of our justice system and constitution over many years, we must plot the long haul back to democracy.
Yes, it’s true the Repugnant judges are the activist judges. It’s also time for us to claim the truth of this in our public discourse.
Have a great day all and keep the sun shining through..
i dont believe he has the power to change much though,not a principal,but thanks,he was a source of inspiration,durimng the Scootie affair
i think this is fair. hold her responsible for her own positions, but not the positions of others.
To impeach a justice, you have to show a substantial proof of misconduct. While I may not agree with reasoning from a number of folks in any given case, I have not seen evidence of criminal misconduct or other problems which would warrant impeachment. Sorry, just don’t see it…
I think I’m o.k. Same back at ya.
Silly thing. Even given all the horrible carnage these last several years, the worst moment for me this time ’round was when the Miami Dade Board of Elections office was stormed and the recount stopped by DeeLay’s henchmen - AND - NO ONE lifted a finger…
we’re in deep trubble, and i don’t see it being fixed in my lifetime. or maybe in that of our kids either.
so… we work… we do what we can… we hug eachother… we “pay forward” with a bit of kindness to strangers, in hopes it will catch on just a little…
P E A C E
here. have a bite of delicious pheasant. just a little chewy, but quite tasty. ;->
That is a good reminder. I’ve tended to focus on leadership rather than the Blue Dogs.
Ding Ding Ding I think we have winner in Christy’s re-branding contest (though since it’s her contest, Christy is the actual judge)
Stare decisis destroyers
That has a really nice sound bite quality and is really pithy.
I like it!
you know me, always Pollyana
OT well, shite…..i’m shaking from adrenaline.
i just got on the diane rehm show, about mccain’s fec violation, made some good points, got good responses, after a few pauses, which is good, but then there were too many points to make, got frustrated and angry, talked too fast and don’t know what the hell i said toward the end.
i did get jane’s filing of her complaint in there, and the 32,000 cosignators……..
and said there were four documents involved, the two fec letters to mccain, one from mccain to fec, and the loan agreement, what’s so hard about that?
they also didn’t mention the dnc court case, which i did…….
someone brought up obama’s funding pledge like he violated something, i brought up how mccain actually signed the papers.
said they keep getting lost in the weeds and not sticking to the facts…….
mary from the wsj said he ’reached’ his funding cap, i pointed out that wasn’t factual, he ’exceeded’ it, big difference. that’s another violation.
also brought up how quickly we came up with quotes from mccain that directly contradicted what he is doing now………
but i think i made an ass of myself, oh well, my shots may not have hit the target cuz of it, but at least i fired on the enemy. the enemy? people not using facts. propoganda.
geeeeeeeeesh…….
i also brought up at the beginning of the call how i sent her the detailed information about the fec violation at the end of march and the beginning of april. and hadn’t heard any of it mentioned in the press, so, that is why i was calling.
in writing all of this, i guess i did get a lot in on that call after all, i feel better.
thanks fdl. and cboldt for linking me to the docs at the end of march.
bbl
Seems like the problem stems from a lack of explanation for the decision.
OT this via TPM
Private enterprise acting like good corporate citizens, so there you cynics!
Dammit, you just made me spew my coffee… *g*
My bad
heh.
Fitz indeed!
Waxman and Conyers.
Sherrod Brown
i know you are probably not in a position to tell us, where your info comes from (if you can, great, but i’m not expecting it).
… so please understand, that it’s not you i don’t trust (i trust you!) - it’s your sources i don’t trust. i don’t know them, i don’t know who they are and i’ve just seen too much spin, dissembling, and out right lying from this congress.
I have had conversations with multiple Congress critters who have said just that. Including Jerry Nadler, Caroline McCarthy, hell, that’s the gist of what Sheldon Whitehouse was saying on Saturday (coverage of his speech at 5 AM FDL time tomorrow) though he was more focused on DOJ.
I think quite a few of them think that, just not enough (in #s) or strongly enough ot buck their colleagues who disagree.
would that be conflict of interest when one should recuse?
I think there are political reasons to not explain it in detail — or at least, they think there are. But I haven’t been able to parse together a decent enough explanation to satisfy myself on what happened, and I’ve talked to a lot of people trying to find out the exact details. So, no, adequate is not remotely what I’d use as a word to characterize what may or may not have happened as has been described with it…not even close.
WOO HOO! Congrats!
John Duncan (Jerk-TN) just claimed that US Environmental Groups are receiving multi-million Dollar donations from OPEC and other foreign energy interests to prevent US energy companies from exploiting domestic energy sources and further the dastardly tree huggers are “Failing to disclose these gifts”. These groups of “Environmental Radicals” are composed of wealthy elites who don’t care that they are hurting average Americans, working men & women. In fact, Environmentalists are “Gleeful” that oil is at $112 per BBL.
imo…why its OFF the table
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.....nvestments
I think, if I remember correctly, that Nadler said that outright when he was on for his Blue America chat ages ago as well. And I’ve heard that any number of times from others as well — several of whom have told me that they are not guessing on the numbers, but know it for a fact, although they’ve never been willing to share the numbers outright. (Even though I’m always still asking for them. *g*)
“g”
wOO hOO!
Way to go!
According to the report, presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and John McCain did not report any defense-related holdings on their filings; Hillary Rodham Clinton did note holdings in such companies as Honeywell, Boeing and Raytheon, but sold the stock in May 2007. All candidates three are members of the Senate.
Yes, the entire Democratic caucus bears responsibility for not acting on impeachment, but this in no way absolves Pelosi for taking impeachment off the table. That is a statement she did not need to make but made anyway.
Thanks for doing that. From your description it sounds like you did fine. Adrenaline is messy stuff, though, isn’t it?
BUY low….sell HIGH
dmac, thanx for that les paul link, I love his interviews and that made my day
No one said anything about absolution, did they?
dmac - you rock. it’s easy to do what you did. thank you!