MaxedOutMama
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
The Durbin Drama And Its Implications
Hat tip Betsy's Page. For a stage setting for this drama, see Carl at No Oil For Pacifists. According to a Washington Times article, Durbin did admit that he discussed the conversation with Turley:
This particular drama has to be seen against the overall debate about the role of the judiciary in this country and under the constitution, because it probably represents a politician's derisive remarks in an attempt to influence press coverage - remarks that he is not willing to confess in the broader public eye. No Oil For Pacifists has just posted a very complete overview of the controversy. It's particularly apt in that he points out some of the ironies inherent in our current position:
Their fear is real, but they don't recognize their own responsibility. To maintain the system they have constructed they will indeed be forced to demand that only people with certain opinions be appointed to the federal bench. And after Kelo, the American people fears the Supreme Court. There is nothing noble about Kelo. There is no great moral goal to be won. There is no expansion of individual freedom that emerges from Kelo. There is only the cold doctrine that since the judges don't see how to make the text of the Constitution consistent with their prior rulings, words written in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution itself must be held to mean nothing.
In Kelo, the theory that judges ARE the Constitution reached its logical fruition in terms the American people can understand - and the people don't like it.
Senate Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin acknowledged yesterday that he was the source for a newspaper column that reported earlier this week that Judge John G. Roberts Jr. said he could not rule in a Supreme Court case where U.S. law might conflict with Catholic teaching.But according to Turley, he confirmed the account of Durbin's conversation by reading it over the phone to Shoemaker. And Shoemaker has been changing his story:
But the Illinois Democrat maintains that the column by George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley incorrectly captured the private conversation that the senator had with Judge Roberts in his Capitol office Friday.
Spokesman Joe Shoemaker also said he did not know who Mr. Turley's source was, although only a handful of people were in the room at the time.What on earth were Durbin and Shoemaker thinking? Durbin now insists that Roberts repeatedly affirmed that he would follow the rule of law. Well, that doesn't directly contradict Turley's account, does it?
"Whoever the source was either got it wrong or Jonathan Turley got it wrong," Mr. Shoemaker said Monday.
Yesterday, Mr. Shoemaker said the source was Mr. Durbin.
"He and Turley were in the green room of the NBC studios," he said. "Turley was getting makeup put on, and Durbin was taking it off.
This particular drama has to be seen against the overall debate about the role of the judiciary in this country and under the constitution, because it probably represents a politician's derisive remarks in an attempt to influence press coverage - remarks that he is not willing to confess in the broader public eye. No Oil For Pacifists has just posted a very complete overview of the controversy. It's particularly apt in that he points out some of the ironies inherent in our current position:
For a half-century, the left's key victories were gifts from an interventionist Supreme Court. This promoted alarming misunderstandings of the judiciary and fostered dangerous myths about our country and Constitution, many of which have been displayed since the President nominated Judge Roberts. At issue is the democratic process and the meaning of judicial independence.An independent judiciary ruling on democratically agreed-upon laws are the necessary counterweights to maintaining our system of law. As Carl lays it out, the problem here is that the judiciary has assumed too much weight in our national life. Victories under our system are supposed to be limited and temporary. Those who push the idea of a living constitution that can mean whatever the conscience of an individual judge thinks it ought to mean have inadvertently created a situation in which conservatism could now sweep the day if it chose to.
Their fear is real, but they don't recognize their own responsibility. To maintain the system they have constructed they will indeed be forced to demand that only people with certain opinions be appointed to the federal bench. And after Kelo, the American people fears the Supreme Court. There is nothing noble about Kelo. There is no great moral goal to be won. There is no expansion of individual freedom that emerges from Kelo. There is only the cold doctrine that since the judges don't see how to make the text of the Constitution consistent with their prior rulings, words written in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution itself must be held to mean nothing.
In Kelo, the theory that judges ARE the Constitution reached its logical fruition in terms the American people can understand - and the people don't like it.
Comments:
<< Home
There is a reason the Juduciary is to be independent from the Executive and Legislative branches of government.
The Legislative branch had better realize that any attempt to get the Judiciary to dance to any tune it plays, will only comeback to haunt them.
Right now, they are playing with fire. The American people (when they get off the beautyrest plan) will bite back- and bite back hard. The electorate is as cold as it can be forgiving.
The Legislative branch had better realize that any attempt to get the Judiciary to dance to any tune it plays, will only comeback to haunt them.
Right now, they are playing with fire. The American people (when they get off the beautyrest plan) will bite back- and bite back hard. The electorate is as cold as it can be forgiving.
I understand how we got here, when the legislature got something wrong the court decided to address it and fix it itself instead of tossing it back to the legislature with a "fix this". Or to paraphrase Scalia the constitution gives me no power over this.
It makes sense, the problem is it leads you to where we are now, and quite simply I don't see anyway out of it, it's simply too ingrained in our society now. Pelosi (who as a legislature one would think would want the legislature to be all powerful) seems to think the Supreme Court is the final authority in all things. Either that or she's stupid. Maybe both.
It makes sense, the problem is it leads you to where we are now, and quite simply I don't see anyway out of it, it's simply too ingrained in our society now. Pelosi (who as a legislature one would think would want the legislature to be all powerful) seems to think the Supreme Court is the final authority in all things. Either that or she's stupid. Maybe both.
# posted by 
: 8:50 AM
: 8:50 AM
Tommy - if we can't correct the court itself we will have no other option than to make the terms on the court shorter - much shorter. This doesn't seem to be a great option either.
So I think we should amend the Constitution to provide some other corrective measure.
Post a Comment
So I think we should amend the Constitution to provide some other corrective measure.
<< Home
