Comments on: Souter’s Tears

By: BBQ

BBQ — Mon, 04 May 2009 02:40:36 +0000

Are you kidding me JSpencer, the Dems were miserable from 2000-2006 and even most of 2006-2008 when Congress decided to not do much and wait until they got a Democratic president.

This is par for the course, the opposition cries like babies until they are in power.

By: JSpencer

JSpencer — Mon, 04 May 2009 00:09:56 +0000

The “conservatives” won't be happy with Obama's pick, even the the choice is moderate. It isn't in their nature to be happy… unless they can say “no”. My hope is that this is a passing phase, but it sure ain't a pretty one.

By: Jcavhs

Jcavhs — Sun, 03 May 2009 21:09:44 +0000

Except that they never got to finish the recount. Former VP Gore was entitled by law to ask for a hand recount. The Supreme Court rightly said that there were Equal Protection issues – but rather than protecting people's rights and ensuring equal standards they stopped the whole process. And then said that their decision couldn't be used as a precedent. If the legal reasonings were sound then allowing to stand as precedent (one of the main reasons for a Supreme Court). It can hardly be considered consistent if you won't allow it to be applied to other cases.

By: ChrisWWW

ChrisWWW — Sun, 03 May 2009 19:53:59 +0000

DLS,
Oh noes! Activist judges!

The rightwing hissy fits over so-called “activist” judges are absurd. The rule of thumb is easy enough:
If a judge makes a decision conservatives don't like, they are activists.

By: DLS

DLS — Sun, 03 May 2009 19:46:46 +0000

“Souter's tears”? That the Supreme Court wouldn't be activist and faithful to the Left and “progress” and let the Dems steal what they lost in 2000? Awww.

If Obama chooses a judge (not a celebrity or quasi-celebrity outside the bench) that isn't blatantly activist, will we see “tears” and Outrage! at their “betrayal” by Obama? Such as if he [gasp] ends up choosing a male or someone Anglo?

In both cases of “tears”: [rightful, earned condescending snickers]

By: DLS

DLS — Sun, 03 May 2009 19:43:59 +0000

I've been “enjoying” the latest events and the retirement of Souter has already exposed a lot of predictable lowness from the low (left) side of the bell curve. I heard someone today disparage the notion of a “dead” [sic] Constitution in favor of a “living” [sic] it-should-be-what-lefties-like-me-want-it-to-be document, and while I trust Obama to use intelligence in his selection of Souter's replacement, he has a lot of activists who need to be muzzled, and who need this already; they have come already out of the woodwork in defense of illegitimate judicial activism (a staple of the Left for decades), which concerns Americans more than their already-predictably-degraded and disgusting PC-driven interest-group competition to see which quota or quotas will be filled by Obama's choice, expected to be discrimination against all white male candidates.

Obama is intelligent but is carrying unseemly leftist baggage and he already has been disturbing when referring to “empathy” as a need in a candidate — the question now arises if this is just mush for the mush-minds to enjoy, or if it is a serious warning that he wants another liberal activist — and he does the same to Americans when it is said he looks to Earl Warren (!) as a model for a replacement candidate. That and the already-bad-behavior from the activist crowd defending judicial activism is more concerning than the PC quota drivel.

By: DaGoat

DaGoat — Sun, 03 May 2009 19:13:32 +0000

Or they reflected a consistent set of legal interpretations. Voting a certain way doesn't make you partisan. Stopping a recount when your preferred candidate is ahead – that is partisan.

Continuing to recount when your candidate is behind could also be viewed as partisan, and Scalia et al could also be portrayed as being consistent.

By: Jcavhs

Jcavhs — Sun, 03 May 2009 18:55:02 +0000

Or they reflected a consistent set of legal interpretations. Voting a certain way doesn't make you partisan. Stopping a recount when your preferred candidate is ahead – that is partisan.

By: DaGoat

DaGoat — Sun, 03 May 2009 18:24:47 +0000

His colleagues’ actions were so transparently, so crudely partisan that Souter thought he might not be able to serve with them anymore.

Souter was usually pretty partisan himself, at least his votes turned out that way.

By: Jcavhs

Jcavhs — Sun, 03 May 2009 18:06:28 +0000

I don't believe Justice Souter's issue was with the ruling that it violated the Equal Protection Clause but rather that they refused to remand it back to the state of Florida to create uniform standard for a recount and then actually conduct a recount. Saying that there were issues with Equal Protection is a valid legal conclusion, as evidenced by the 7-2 decision. Refusing to allow the creation of a uniform standard so that a recount could be conducted (as allowed for by Florida state law) appears to many to be allowing politics to enter into the law which is why there were an additional 2 dissenting votes for that order.

By: AustinRoth

AustinRoth — Sun, 03 May 2009 17:02:09 +0000

If he was so upset by that decision, why-oh-why was he part of the 7-2 majority that ruled the recount in question was invalid because it "was an Equal Protection Clause violation in using different standards of counting in different counties."

He wants to have his cake and eat it, too.

Also, we still have the revisionist history problem here, but I won't go there.

By: PattonGuy

PattonGuy — Sun, 03 May 2009 15:41:36 +0000

I thought he's 69, not 79.