Wednesday, October 26, 2005
This is why I drink
We undeniable [sic] still have a justice system that does not provide justice for all as provided by the Pledge of Allegiance. One justice for the rich, one justice for the poor. One justice sometimes for minorities, one for whites.
Have you ever been torn between laughing and crying? On the one hand, this comment is so patently absurd and horribly expressed that you can’t help but laugh at its inanity. On the other hand, you realize that this was actually spoken by the current nominee to the Supreme Court, and you must weep for the future of your country.
It just boggles the mind that this nomination can actually get worse, and even it’s even more mind boggling that there are people still willing to defend her. And this is not even the worst part about this 1993 speech to the Executive Women of Dallas (see here for a link). One example: she said that, “officials would rather abandon to the courts the hard questions so they can respond to constituents: I did not want to do that - the court is making me." Then: “My basic message here is that when you hear the Courts blamed for activism or intrusion where they do not belong... Stop and examine what the elected leadership has done to solve the problem at issue and whether abdication to courts to make the hard decisions is not a too prevalent tactic in today’s world. Politicians who are too concerned about maintaining their jobs.”
Now, Rich Lowry had attempted to defend Miers, but Ramesh Ponnuru set him straight. Clearly Miers is not arguing that the legislature has failed to “reign in” the Courts; rather, they have decided to step in when the legislature has failed to confront an issue. This is a blatant advocacy for judicial activism. When the judiciary takes it upon itself to “solve problems,” then that is the clearest description of judicial activism. If the legislature is lax in addressing societal concerns, then voters ought to vote for change. It is not the province of the Courts to legislate in lieu of the legislative branch.
I don’t know what else to say. If you can read this speech and still say that she’s qualified to be sitting on the Supreme Court, then you’re just absolutely clueless.
Have you ever been torn between laughing and crying? On the one hand, this comment is so patently absurd and horribly expressed that you can’t help but laugh at its inanity. On the other hand, you realize that this was actually spoken by the current nominee to the Supreme Court, and you must weep for the future of your country.
It just boggles the mind that this nomination can actually get worse, and even it’s even more mind boggling that there are people still willing to defend her. And this is not even the worst part about this 1993 speech to the Executive Women of Dallas (see here for a link). One example: she said that, “officials would rather abandon to the courts the hard questions so they can respond to constituents: I did not want to do that - the court is making me." Then: “My basic message here is that when you hear the Courts blamed for activism or intrusion where they do not belong... Stop and examine what the elected leadership has done to solve the problem at issue and whether abdication to courts to make the hard decisions is not a too prevalent tactic in today’s world. Politicians who are too concerned about maintaining their jobs.”
Now, Rich Lowry had attempted to defend Miers, but Ramesh Ponnuru set him straight. Clearly Miers is not arguing that the legislature has failed to “reign in” the Courts; rather, they have decided to step in when the legislature has failed to confront an issue. This is a blatant advocacy for judicial activism. When the judiciary takes it upon itself to “solve problems,” then that is the clearest description of judicial activism. If the legislature is lax in addressing societal concerns, then voters ought to vote for change. It is not the province of the Courts to legislate in lieu of the legislative branch.
I don’t know what else to say. If you can read this speech and still say that she’s qualified to be sitting on the Supreme Court, then you’re just absolutely clueless.
# posted by Paul Zummo : 10:46 PM
