Justices Roberts and Alito are Extremists Who Mock Compassion and are Blinded to the Vulnerable?
By AndrewHyman Posted in Judiciary Committee — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
That's what one hyper-partisan U.S. Senator says:
As we enter the third year of the lifetime appointments of Roberts and Alito to the Court, it is clear that their approach to judging mocks the commitment to open-mindedness, modesty, and compassion that they professed during their confirmation hearings….Alito and Roberts have turned out to be remarkably blinded to the plight of America's most vulnerable….The White House concealed information about its nominees ….[T]here is no good reason for nominees to refuse to state how they would have voted in cases the Supreme Court has already decided….After posing as moderates in their confirmation hearings, extremist justices have moved the Supreme Court far to the right of the American mainstream.
This is from a November 19 piece by Senator Edward Kennedy in the American Prospect. Kennedy might consider that people who disagree with him sometimes do so in good faith.
Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes once said: "A dissent in a Court of last resort is an appeal . . . to the intelligence of a future day...." Ted Kennedy wants to decide those appeals, instead of letting judges do it. Kennedy may have good intentions, but he's wrong. Congress can overturn cases that turn on the meaning of a federal statute, but Congress should generally butt out of constitutional cases. The last thing we need are judicial nominees who abandon what they believe is an honest and open-minded approach to the interpretation of the Constitution, in order to pander to politicians.
I had a similar post in April titled, "Ted Kennedy Imperils Judicial Independence."
Roberts and Alito
by Matthew Friendly
Roberts and Alito have proven to be excellent justices who will be on the originalist side of cases more often than not. Still...having just read Steven Calabresi's Originalism, I have to conclude that we might have done even better from an originalist standpoint had Bush appointed Michael McConnell and Frank Easterbrook to chief justice and associate justice, respectively. If you read the book, it's impossible to come away with any conclusion other than that both McConnell and Easterbrook are brilliant originalist judges - undoubtedly the two most prominent. Roberts may be on a par with them, though I'm not certain of that. I'm not convinced that Alito is in their league. Perhaps except for JRB and Alison Eid, I don't see how anyone else could be considered over them for the next vacancy, if it occurs under a Republican.
Also clear from the book is that law professors such as John McGinnis, John Harrison, Michael Paulsen, and Michael Rappaport (to name only a few) should, without a doubt, be on Courts of Appeals. It is unforgivable that Bush has not placed more devoted and learned originalists on the COAs. I recommend the book to all here. It is informative, both as to originalism and as to those who propound it.
Also
by Matthew Friendly
Also Calabresi, of course.
Roberts seems very good
by bk
at crafting narrow decisions. Whether it's in order to gain consensus (i.e. to get Kennedy's vote) or because that's just his approach I wouldn't know. But this seems conservative (in the generic sense) as opposed to how liberal justices like to look for any excuses to implement broad liberal policies from the bench.
People like Kennedy should be thanking their lucky stars to have someone who crafts narrow decisions they don't like, as opposed to what we are faced with in the other direction.
I always have to laugh
by Dienekes
when someone like Kennedy, not just up a creek without a paddle but 10 miles inland without one, dares accuse anyone of being outside the mainstream.
ABA rating for Matthews
by Dienekes
an outrageous Qsm/NQmin. I still expect he'll be confirmed, but it looks like the ABA is trying to play a similar game to the one they played for Wallace.
Drunk Ted not only didn't
by BillM
Drunk Ted not only didn't write that piece, he probably didn't even do more than glance at it before nodding his head. I recognized much of it verbatim from Nan, Dahlia, Neas, etc.
All this stuff about "full, forthright answers about a nominee's legal views" will go out the window the moment there's a Dem POTUS who nominates someone like Koh.
Notice of course there's no mention of the Ginsburg Rule, created by Leahy & Biden, but we know all this.
Thanks, Bobo.
It could well be the case re AK. Half a loaf? A little bit pregnant (woops, that gets into Roe territory, doesn't it?)?
By the way, would you please let me know how I can order my own super duper crystal ball. I probably will opt instead for the Aragorn 5.5 Palantir!