It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
I agree. I’m sure plenty on the left are already missing Harriet Miers.
it is unfortunate that this “right” and “left” has come to replace jurisprudence and competence in judicial nominations order to score points re. political affiliation.
There has always been conservative, moderate and liberal in varying shades, but we have nominations of the last 20 years in most instances where the nominee is not suitable for evaluation of constitutional law. You know something is wrong when Bar association actives, both conservative and liberal, raise their brow at a nominations.
There is an excellent conservative federal judge in my state who has been effectively passed over in the last two nominations. He would have had support of both parties because of his respect for consitutional decisions of the currently active court, but he is not religious in any way, and this is the Bar Association gossip re. why he has not been nominated, despite earning his stripes as quite a famed litigator then federally appointed judge in the 80s.
Being future stupid.
David, how is the left to blame for the nomination of Alito? Correct me if I’m reading you wrong.
My thoughts: It’s been proven that we can have a nominee that’s acceptable to all but the most extreme 5% on each side. His name was John Roberts. He can’t possibly be the only one out there.
by the way Dave I am not sad about “left’s current inability to get out of its own way.” as much as people who feel what is “right” or “left” is more important than competence.
But if this turns out to be a nomination that destroys the respect and trust gained by the supreme court in the post WWII yrs til present than the court can be and should be ended if it is the will of our elected representives according to the consitution, and maybe this is the long term purpose.
It isn’t the left getting in its own way. It is the Democratic Party and its leaders in D.C.
In the Senate the Democrats voted for bottomless war spending (passed 100-0), national ID cards (hidden in the war spending bill), and a permanent Patriot Act (not one Democrat opposed). Now one of those Senate Democrats is poised to become governor of New Jersey.
Today’s news about the Supreme Court is to keep the press from reporting about Iraq (where the carnage continues) and Scooter Libby. Could Libby rat out Cheney and force the VP to resign?
Also, don’t anybody start about the “Liberal Media”. They only follow the gov’t line whether it be Democrat or Republican.
Alito is one of the most qualified judges in America. Just because someone is conservative doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be on the Court. Ruth Ginsburg was counsel for the ACLU and wanted the age of consent at 12 and wanted polygamy legalized. if thats not out of the mainstream I don’t know what is.
The judicial branch should not be about right or left or moderate. It should be about one thing. The Constitution and not legislating from the bench. That’s why we have elections.
How was Miers a ‘treat’? She was obviously an unqualified crony, regardless of who replaces her.
Didn’t Feingold vote no on the Patriot Act?
Lota, I don’t think Congress can eliminate the Supreme Court, as you seem to suggest, it would require a major constitutional amendment.
Joe, you are absolutely right. However, you have to realize that conservatives are as guilty of legislating from the bench as liberals.
The Left only has itself to blame. They had what they wanted in Harriet Miers. A person who was once a hardcore Liberal and was pro abortion. Harry Reid even suggested her. But yet he couldn’t endorse her? No Democrat would support her? They were too busy being giddy over the rights debate and they doubted that Bush would withdraw her. They didn’t have foresight but that’s not new.
Now we get Judge Alito who is a great judge and will take the Court back to the place it should be. An originalist court.
Jeff’s right, Chucky. Senator Russ Feingold, D-WI, voted against the PATRIOT Act.
Man, I wish that guy was president.
This guy was unanimously confirmed by the Senate twice before. Even Teddy Kennedy gave him his vote. A graduate of Princeton and then Yale Law schools, an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the appellate division, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate as U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, and unanimously confirmed for the Third Circuit. That’s one pretty impressive resume.
Did we know for sure what Miers stance is on abortion? And the right deserves most, if not all of the blame for Miers being forced to withdraw. What makes Alito a great judge? And don’t just say he’s “an originalist.” Provide some details.
Go over his 15 year record as an appellate judge. He can write opinions as well as anyone out there. He doesn’t make law just interprets it. You’re obviously going to have problems with him if you’re a liberal. Nothing that can be done about that but that’s why we vote in this country. There are consequences to elections and Presidents get the nominate judges.
The problem with the Court in recent times is that they bypass Congress and the legislative branches and make law. That’s not what the Constitution wants or says. Hopefully, this will end in the future. A great day for the judiciary branch and the people.
Yes, the Dems in the Senate had nothing to do with Miers pulling out. It was the right wing that refused to go along with her nomination.
Mark Z, are you a believer in original intent or original meaning?
Miers might be a great lawyer but she was out of her element dealing with Constitutional law. Which is what the Supreme Court is. I take pride in the fact that the debate over her merits and qualifications lead her to bravely withdraw and let a supremely qualified nominee take the position. She was like a high school baseball player going right up and playing shortstop in the majors. Nothing against her but it takes more to be on the Supreme Court than knowing the President. The Democrats should have seen this coming a mile away. They should have stood behind Ms. Miers with all they had. Because they were never going to do better with so many qualified conservatives in the judicial community.
With due respect, JMc – and again… please maintain respect in this post in particular, all – Harriet Miers was surely a crony, but the “unqualified” accusation was just the kind of thing I object to.
She had not been a judge. She is a highly qualified officer of the court an done of the most accomplished women lawyers in the country. Personally, regardless of poliotical leaning, I kind of like the idea of someone who is a bit of a judicial outsider.
That said, the strategy of attack by the “voices of the left” put them squarely in the camp of the extremists of the right. Doesn’t that set off alarms for you?
But the same thing is happening on the Judith Miller issue. Both extreme sides are on a witch hunt and no one in the middle really cares. What does affect real people is that the media is now trying to create news instead of report it. And Judy Miller is guilty of this, but no more guilty than her editors. Nonetheless, Arriana “Post” Huffington & Co are so busy with the “Get Bushy” agenda, that instead of really using this scandal to the advantage of the left, they will overshoot it yet again.
Instead of using the assets that are falling from the sky like manna, for some reason, the left needs to push for more. What good answer was there to pushing Harriet Miers out? Because it’s not really about “the best judge” or about moderation – they screamed about Roberts too – it’s about winning. But sometimes, you lose by winning. And that is how I feel today. Maybe she was a Trojan Horse. But this new guy is surely worse. And he is an unstoppable nominee.
I’m still bitter about how they treated a smart black man, Clarence Thomas, because they didn’t agree with his views. Showed me a lot of who they really are to savage a brother like that.
Miers should be appointed to the DC circuit court where she can get experience. I think she should have had a chance to prove her worth at the hearings but from what I hear, she was not good or prepared during her one on ones with the various Senators. And this was bipartisan. She was thrown to the wolves and she wasn’t up the task. She is probably a fantastic corporate lawyer but a Supreme Court Justice is in another world.
P.S. I would argue that if the chattering class on the left was not beating her to a pulp all day and all night, the moderate Republican side could have been drawn to vote for her. But as it went, No One was on her side. She was everyone’s target.
Is the left purely to blame? Not at all. But what was the good alternative going to be? Can’t there be a choice that is not great, but better than the alternative?
Yes, Miers may have turned out to be anti-abortion. But she was not likely to be a leader on the Court and there was some sense that she might settle into moderation, if not outright lefty-ism.
But not knowing anything for sure, anything that makes the extremists unhappy sures seems like a positive choice to me.
At the very least, pulling Miers should have seemed to be Bush conceding to the hard right, costing him even more politcal capital. But it cost him nothing except embarrassment. And he has so much of that already, who is gonna notice?
I believe in sticking to the meaning of the words in the Constitution as they were used at the time of it was drafted. I am not for reading too much into the words. I think the meaning should only be changed by Constitutional Amendment. The people have the power in our country. Not the courts or lawyers or judges.
I see your points, David, are you suggesting that Reid and the Dems should have formed an alliance with Bush to get Miers in against the right-wing? Interesting notion but I can’t imagine such a thing happening.
Lester, hopefully without offending you, don’t you think the Thomas attacks proved that the contents of his heart and mind were more important to those Senators than the color of his skin?
When Pat Robertson gushes his support for someone, that is a red flag for me.
So Mark, you therefore believe that the first amendment should apply only to printing presses and not to television, radio, or the internet, since none of those things existed when the constitution was written? That is ‘original meaning’ and it’s what you just said you believe in.
democracy.
In regards to Miers. Why have someone on the Court who is an unknown? Why should Bush and the Senate majority have to roll the dice and take their chances with someone? They have the numbers. These are the the kinds of judges he promised to appoint. Why show weakness in something this big when you can do what you want to do? Clinton didn’t back away. he appointed two hardcore Liberals and they were voted in with over 90 votes each. Why should Bush not appoint hardcore conservatives?
That last word there is a typo.
Bush appointed exactly who he wanted, a long-time friend and ally. He doesn’t really want to pander to the right wing unless forced to, as he was with Alito.
I believe and I know a lot of my fellow African Americans believe that they all attacked Thomas just because he was black. When a black man got into a position of power they tried to take him down. I’m no fan of that kind of treatment for anyone let alone a fellow brother.
Damn, I run off to the movies for 3 hours and I come back to Crossfire. Way to stir the pot Poland.
How about a post on the seige in Waco Texas tomorrow?
So you felt betrayed by the Democrats on Thomas, Lester? Sorry to hear it.
I couldn’t believe Harry Reid would suggest her to Bush then miraculously she is nominated by Bush at his urging and then he doesn’t support her.
The Left overthought this one. It’s shocking that they didn’t support her. Why would Conservatives support her? She gave money to Al Gore’s campaign, she gave speeches that were pro abortion, and she had no judicial philosophy that was proven over time. They wanted us to support her because she was Christian? Not going to fly with something as important as the Supreme Court.
I think they only have pro-abortion speeches in China.
I think the Left would get more mileage out of supporting a nominee clearly as qualified as Alito than by dumping on him and trying scare tactics. They would show they’re not obstructionists. If the GOP could support Ginsburg and Breyer than the Left can support Alito.
Isn’t it law in China that you can only have one kid?
Communism stinks.
Maybe Miers could have been a great conservative justice. But the chance was just too high to take. When only one person could vouch for her? That’s a red flag for me. I trust President Bush so I would have supported her if she didn’t withdraw but I’m not shedding any tears over it. Judge Alito is as competent as they get. I had the honor of meeting him a few years back. Gracious and nice and personable. A nice man.
What do you think the left could do, DP? They don’t have a majority in the Senate, House and they don’t control the White House. There is not much they can do about the judiciary branch. What they should have realized was that Harriet Miers was the best they were going to get from Bush and they should have jumped on her bandwagon.
maybe its about that time for the democrats to finally start being honest and truthful with themselves and with the voters. they should stop hiding behind moderates and interest groups. they should tell people what they really believe in instead of being shady about it. be themselves. start having some ideas. but the problem is the higher ups in the party know that once america hears what they’re all about they won’t stand a chance in any election. elections mean something.
What I want to know is, when is the National Italian American Foundation going to get the apology that they are demanding?
The Supreme Court should be filled with the best of the best. Sam Alito is obviously in that tier. Tough to deny that. Why should we have a second rate Supreme Court?
I agree that the left has become their own worst enemy, but they did an outstanding job staying out of the fray with the Libber indictment. The right was waiting for any liberal politician to pipe up and no one did….they finally learned that if you don’t feed the conservative beast, it’s teeth fall out.
I think the Alito appointment is all a sham to steal headlines away from Karl Rove and the fact that he should be fired. It’s like taking a sharp stick and jabbing the left with it. They’re sure to react. This Alito thing will get them out and talking….and thus get him appointed. Shame. Then again, maybe this will spark a revolution…probably not though.
The Left in this country is embarrassing. Chris Matthews just had an interview on MSNBC where he’s holding a Democratic talking points list that tries to bash Alito for failing to get a mob conviction in 1988. Ethnic stuff this early? If that’s all they have he’ll sail thru easily. We should have a healthy debate but it shouldn’t resort to crap like that.
Both parties are embarrassing right now.
Two things:
1) The left did not sabotage the Miers vote. Democrats are the opposition: it is their right and duty to oppose what the party in power is proposing. Form what I saw, the Dems were much more willing to take a “wait and see” with Miers than the right wing of the GOP was. The president’s own party sabotaged the nomination, which is why he then appointed the non-consensus Alito.
2) Alito is probably as rightist as they come, and America deserves him. If the average voter really cares about the civil liberties (i.e. abortion) that will be curtailed under a Roberts/Alito court, then they shouldn’t vote far-right GOP nutcases into Congress and the White House.
A conservative President nominates a conservative judge. Who expected anything else?
And it has to be who he really wanted in the first place.
Well, thats the real issue now isn’t? The Left thinks that the majority of America wants abortion and abortion rights. And that is just not the case. They will only have judges who are pro Roe. And that’s just not going to go over well. Judges like Alito are going to interpret law. Not make law.
As a Conservative I’m real happy with Judge Alito and real happy that Miers withdrew. We got a judge who is exremely talented, smart and one who is well versed in the law. Exactly what Pres Bush said he was going to appoint.
“I am deeply sad about the left’s current inability to get out of its own way.”
Did anyone see Howard Dean on Letterman a couple weeks ago? I swear to god I could see “we are so fucked” etched over the host’s face as the music played to commerical.
But remember joe, a majority of Americans do support abortion rights.
I’m sure he can find a poll somewhere that argues the opposite.
I would still be interested in having a debate over originalism and how it’s a flawed and impractical judicial philosophy…anyone?
Anyway, it’s all just a cover for “they don’t decide things the way I want them decided”.
Eric: There was a bill this year to make the Patriot Act permanent. Russell Feingold — a Democrat — voted FOR that bill. So did every other Democrat in the Senate. That vote in support of a police state undercuts any antiwar leanings.
Feingold also voted in ’01 to confirm John Ashcroft as attorney general.
Thank you all for being gracious to one another while also arguing some strong opinons. It is much appreciated.
I am off to trick or treat with some kids. I hope that when I get back in three hours that this is still a bloodless thread.
I actually love this discussion. Many of us disgree, but really… pretty happy with the open expression of it all.
the dems should embrace who they are and have the cajones to nominate a guy like feingold for president. i may not agree with any of his thinking but he has strong views and is not ashamed of who he is. enough with the fakes like kerry and hillary.
Whats the abortion ratio? At most its 50-50. So why should Democrats demand litmus tests for judges? They will onl support judges who support Roe even if most legal scholars know that Roe is bad law. Pro or anti abortion I don’t care. I don’t think 9 lawyers should be making laws for us. Thats why we elect legislatures, right?
The best thing to ever happen to the GOP? Howard Dean. He’s the gift that keeps on giving.
Can you explain how Roe is bad law, Joe?
Did you see the question I posed earlier to Josh (never answered) regarding originalism? Nobody wants judges ‘making’ laws but it’s unavoidable to have them interpreting the law.
According to a 2004 Gallup poll, not exactly move.org, 52% of Americans identify themselves as pro-choice, compared to 41% pro-life.
That should be moveon.org. Sorry.
Jeff, how is it a flawed philosophy? Do you know much about the law or are you just familiar with the basics? I’m not trying to snipe at you, so relax, I just want to know where you stand before I would get into the inherent philosophy of originalism with you and how much you know about the different judicial philosophies. It’s not as cut and dry as you might think it is.
Mark Ziegler wrote: “I believe in sticking to the meaning of the words in the Constitution as they were used at the time of it was drafted. I am not for reading too much into the words. I think the meaning should only be changed by Constitutional Amendment. The people have the power in our country. Not the courts or lawyers or judges.”
If not its meaning, then certainly what could be contemplated by the concept of “commerce” was radically different in the eighteenth century than it is today. Just to use the example of this blog, there were no movies (or blogs to speak about them) back then, yet both I would say are implicated in commerce. My question is, then, how does one reconcile fixity of meaning with things which have since come into being yet could never have been comprehended by the meaning at that time?
Very well stated, Blackcloud.
I am no lawyer, so I am hardly as well-versed in the debate as others may be. Just a well-educated layman, and yourself, Mark?
Oh yeah, sorry to Josh, I meant to refer to you, Mark, not him, for never responding to my originalism comment before.
If you think the words of law are inadequete than you should and can amend it. That’ss why there is an amendment provision. I am from the school of the words are the law. Not intent. Not reading minds. You shouldn’t look to the courts to change or make law. Now don’t get me wrong. I am a conservative but conservatives are just as prepared to create new rights as liberals are.
If you want rights or laws then you should create them. You shouldn’t be changing or interpreting the great Constitution to get it. Pass a law. Create the rights. You want abortions? Pass a law. If you don’t want a law? Repeal it. It’s the system we have.
So, these people who go around talking about the need for growing and bending of the Constitution? It is just a ridiculous concept. What these groups of people want is to impose a view of things on the whole society at large and it is most quickly and most effectively done through the Constitution. And that’s just wrong.
Abortion’s an easy one… the right says to choose no, the left says you can choose either or. The false term “pro-abortion” is like saying wanting anything to be legal (alcohol, flag burning, candybars) is to be “pro” it. A complete fallacy.
Besides, I don’t know many right wingers who have funerals for their miscarried pregnancies. How disrespectful to a human life is that?
The Supreme Court was never meant to be the be all and end all of the US. And if you aren’t a follower of originalism than what kind of judicial philosophy do you follow? What do judges consult when they bypass the Constitution? When that starts happening we start having biased opinions. We get judges who use their own personal views instead of the laws of the land. Next thing you know we’ll have polls deciding the laws.
The whole purpose of the Constitution is to prevent a future society from doing what it wants to do. That’s the whole purpose. Do you want future majorities making and changing and bending laws to suit their needs? Then we’ll start getting judges who don’t use the law the way it was written. And you won’t have a fair and balanced system and it will break down.
The right is about state’s rights for abortion. It should go back to the states and create and pass laws for it. You think repealing Roe v Wade will have any effect on abortions? No, it won’t. it will just give the law back to the people. Where it belongs.
So when radio and television were invented they should have passed amendments extending the first amendment to cover them, correct? And so on, forcing constitutional amendments ad infinitum? That would be a laborious effort for any democracy. The judiciary needs to be independent of popular sentiment in order to be effective.
It is not up to the judges to decide and interpret the meaning of the words. If we abandon the words and the text then the system will never be the same. And you say laborious? Isn’t that why we elect these people? To work? I never thought I’d hear that argument from you. I hope these gov’t workers work their butts off. They’re not there to hangout and drink at Foggy Bottom.
And what you say about popular sentiment is my whole point. We don’t want judges and the rule of law being in anyway effected by the majority. That is why we need the Constitution and the words. So we don’t have activists making up law and judges interpreting the Constitution to fit their needs and their own personal views.
The Hot Blog movies have been overtaken by the Hot Supreme Court Law blog. Help!!
Lest anyone think that originalism is of recent vintage, it goes all the way back to the 1790s. The first originalist? James Madison, who began developing an originalist philosophy because he couldn’t stand the policies Alexander Hamilton was implementing under the guise of the Constitution. Surely that is one of the greatest fallings-out ever. Anyway, the question of original intent and original meaning has existed almost as long as the Constitution has.
For those interested in some historical perspective, a great book to read is “Original Meanings” by Jack Rakove. Another, and even more fundamental, is Gordon Wood’s “The Creation of the American Republic,” which is perhaps the most important book on the American Revolution published since WWII.
Those are excellent books, Blackcloud. I also suggest “Originalism in American Law and Politics : A Constitutional History” by Johnathan O’Neill and “Men in Black” by Mark Levin. Two more excellent reads for either conservatives or liberals.
Who reads anymore??? That’s why we watch movies. LOL.
Mark, we agree on much but not all.
When I said “laborious” I meant that we would be forced to amend the constitution constantly, every time some major public controversy or new piece of technology came along, resulting in a non-federal government with no judiciary of any power to speak of. “to decide and interpret the meaning of the words” is exactly what judges do, use their wisdom and experience to make specific decisions based on general principles. If the basic text was all that was required, there would be no need for judges at all, and the nation would fall to the tyranny of the majority.
Alito’s an Italian. He can’t be that bad.
I’m also still in shock all you all are getting along and are being civil. Poppa’s proud. Poppa wanna hug.
Judge use their wisdom based on the texts of the Constitution. Using anything else (foreign law, own person views etc) is just wrong and doesn’t keep anything on an even keel. If you truly don’t like a law you should get together and get it changed.
Look back at womens right to vote. The 19th Amendment. A huge groundswell got together and got it changed.
If people thought then as they thought now, there would have been zero need for that. There was an equal protection clause, right there in the Constitution in 1920. Nothing could be a greater denial of equal protection in a democracy than denial of the franchise. And so why didn’t those that were campaigning for a change just come to the court and say, “This is a denial of equal protection. That’s it.”? Well, that’s not how they thought. Equal protection could mean that everybody has to have the vote. It could mean a whole bunch of things in the abstract. It could meant that women must be sent into combat. It could meant that have to have unisex toilets in public buildings. But does it mean those things? Obviously, it doesn’t mean those. It could have meant all those things. But it just never did.
That was not its understood meaning. And since that was not its meaning in 1871, it’s not its meaning today. The meaning doesn’t change. If it did, then we’d have problems.
I’m just happy John Kerry isn’t picking judges. We’d get the most liberal ones you can think of. I bet the Right had the same attitude as Dave does now back when Breyer and Ginsburg were nominated.
there seems to be some major misunderstandings on what the Court’s remits are, and what it can and cannot do re. law.
the supreme court has its own website on .gov federal website where much of that info is posted.
Jeff– Supreme court was created by an COngressional act of law. It would not require a consitutional amendment to disempower it even though some legal people no doubt would fight for that.
And while some people are spouting off Alito’s credentials like no one else came close–he’d be about 25 in the list of prominent conservatives that have more experience and less religion/club memberships (that may influence who he feels he owes).
Mark, I see where you’re coming from, and I think we just have to agree to disagree.
The basic problem is that the nation has become so ideologically polarized that even judges are forced to pick sides.
Judges shouldn’t picking sides. They should be supporting the Constitution and the laws of the country. Respect the laws. Respect the people. On both sides.
Lota,
Alito is one of the most qualified judges in this country. He’d certainly be in any top 25 list. He has been on the short list since Bush came into office. This isn’t a surprise to anyone who has followed the Court and followed the speculation.
Article 3 Section 1 of the Constitution:
“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court” The Judicary act of 1790 did indeed create the court, but its existence is mandated by the Constitution and it couldn’t be eliminated by statute.
Sorry, 1789, not 1790.
Thanks for agreeing with me, Joe.
Bruce, Lota is saying Alito would be in any top 25, at the bottom of such a list.
Jeff,
Thanks for debating it. There are obviously other schools of thought on the subject. Each holding their own and each having their powerful intellectual supporters behind them. If intellectual heavyweights like Scalia and Ginsburg can be on the opposite ends of the spectrum on this than you can have more than one philosophy of what works. Say what you will about either one you can’t deny their intellectual fortitude. Two judicial polar opposites but also two great friends. Scalia is a textualist and originalist. Ginsburg part of the living and breathing Constitution group.
Are they friends??? I guess they’d have to be, to work together…
I don’t know many who would put Alito at the bottom of any list. He is always bee on the top of any conservative wish list for the Court. He was nominated to the appellate bench at 39. The man is a giant in the legal community. He has done it all. If we have 24 judges just as good or better than him than I’m happy with the judicial situation in this country.
Mark, thank you for being able to have an intelligent discussion and not just tossing off buzzwords and empty rhetoric, I appreciate it.
Sorry to come in late, but:
Doesn’t an originalist interpretation mean that same-sex marriage should be legal nationwide under the Full Faith and Credit clause and the 14th Amendment?
Sorry to maybe drop a bomb.
I think what scares me the most about all of this is the extreme, intransigent ideological split in the country. Culture wars are often precursors to shooting wars, and if the states had increased say over things like abortion and gay rights it would probably lead to increased geographic polarization, which is the next step to a civil war.
But at least Alito doesn’t have that annoying smirk that John Roberts always has plastered on his face.
^ Nor is he fugly like Miers.
Miers was butt ugly. But facts are facts. Who’s playing her in the movie? Cloris Leachman?
Too thin. Rachel Dratch did her great on SNL this weekend.
Come on. Has to be Rachel McAdams. Gosling can play John Roberts.
Well, this is Poland’s site, so McAdams it is.
Ginnifer Goodwin can player her supportive and always there for her best friend.
Perhaps Jamie Foxx in a mentor role as the sagacious Clarence Thomas.
Bad fit, since Thomas hardly ever talks at all.
It’s casting against type. Like Burt Lancaster in Judgment at Nurenburg.
The best I can add to the conversation is this.
Love your country and love your process. Whether you are right or left you have the most democratic nation on the planet.
The Judicial Court Nominee will be grilled. There will be debate. He may be confirmed, he may not. By the end of the process you will know everything there is to know about them. That is a good thing.
I live in Toronto,Canada.
Our Supreme Court hearings play out like this. The Prime Minister’s Office picks a nominee when a position arises. The Opposition is only told who the person is the day before they have to question them. During the questioning they are not allowed to ask any questions about their views, ideology or previous decisions. They can only ask superficial questions like…’where did you go to school?’
Then, the next day the opposition says all is well (they have no choice so it is really just PR) and the nominee is confirmed. The whole process takes about 48 hours. They are confirmed for life. Period.
I know many of you on the left see Canada as a beacon…don’t. Even if you love your Michael Moore, don’t believe a word he says about the Canadian process. He is grossly misinformed. For better or for worse you will get your time in the States.
I read a statement yesterday on Canada saying that if Canada were charged with the crime of democracy would there be enough evidence to convict her? The answer was, no.
If you know how the parliamentary system up here works you would know that Canada is perhaps the least democratic of the Western democracies.
Enjoy your country. Enjoy your process. Many wish they had it.
Oh, no, the perfect Harriet is Swoosie Kurtz.
I think everyone deserves a big pat on the back for keeping this comment thread so civil.
It’s amazing how constructive things can be when people focus on the common ground of their disagreements and not the devisive aspects.
The judicial branch is the only avenue available to liberalism to affect change in this county, at this point in time. The mainstream is not voting for open-faced liberalism. Liberalism simply does not sell. How often to we see liberal politicians campaigning as liberals? What do liberal politicians say when asked for a specific plan? They dodge the question. Liberal politicians have been damaged for not offering specific plans (see: Kerry). It’s not that they don’t have them; it’s that they cannot articulate their plans without being rejected outright. As we speak, Hilary Clinton is carefully reinventing herself as a mainstream politician with eyes on 2008.
As a conservative, I could support Alito even if his values didn’t align with my own, as long as his judicial philosophy was that of a strict constuctionist, and not an activist. Many liberals cannot say the same; they NEED judges legislating from the bench, or else liberalism will wither on the vine.
liberals need judges legislating because no majority supports their views. they need the courts to push their agenda.
“So, these people who go around talking about the need for growing and bending of the Constitution? It is just a ridiculous concept. What these groups of people want is to impose a view of things on the whole society at large and it is most quickly and most effectively done through the Constitution. And that’s just wrong.”
Might I remind you that this describes the Republican party in the last election? They made the unnecessarily divisive idea of amending the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage a large part of their party platform.
Hey Bob, you repeated what Mysteryperfecta said right above you, but he gave his opinion in a thoughtful, detailed statement while you just tossed out some empty rhetoric.
I would like to ask you to work on your presentation skills. Maybe find something to say that hasn’t just been said, too.
Uh… J-Mac… we were doing great… and there you go taking it to someplace personal… what up with that?
I hope Bob will not respond.
I will apologize only for my last sentence.
I’m out of here folks, tip your waitress.
Jeff can’t help himself. His inner Howard Dean just takes over. I was rooting for you Jeff to make it thru a day, bud.
He may have gotten pissy but you don’t need to be arrogant yourself, Angelus.
I guess some people have no sense of humor. Sorry, dave l, but that wasn’t to you, bud. But I like that you are feisty.
Appreciate it.
Anyway, Howard Dean would have made a better candidate than Kerry. Less snoozing all around.
It is too bad they didn’t nominate Dean and really run as who they are. Honesty. Would have been nice.
Likewise for the Repubs, but substitute Rick Santorum in the above sentence. Or Jerry Falwell.
Speaking of Dean, someone mentioned his appearance on “Hardball” Monday. What struck me is that he repeatedly refused to acknowledge that the Democratic Party is “pro-choice.” Chris Matthews kept asking him, and Dean kept his mouth (uncharacteristically) closed. At the end Matthews commented that it was interesting that the head of the party wouldn’t declare what it stood for. I thought Dean’s reputation was as someone who told it like it is. Maybe not.
Rick Santorum vs. Barbara Boxer. Now that’s a match I’d pay to watch. Is it humanly possible to be any more shrill than those two?
Someone deep in the above posts called it: “Howard Dean is the Republican’s best friend.” We shoulda gift wrapped the som’bitch. But saying Dean is an authentic democrat is like saying the right is best represented by Cheney or Rove (Bush may be nothing more than a Charlie McCarthy doll, but his nomination of Meirs says he’s not a fanatic at heart).
Blackcloud, could that Santorum/Boxer match be to the death? And then thumbs down to the winner, too?
I think Dean’s strategy is to try and make the party into more of a big tent, especially since Santorum is facing a pro-life Dem next year.
“Blackcloud, could that Santorum/Boxer match be to the death? And then thumbs down to the winner, too?”
Could it be otherwise? LOL
dean isn’t a true blue democrat? then why is he the face of the party? they can’t get anything right there.
I’d say that the Republicans have also had a hard time getting anything right lately. One just needs to look at current events to see that much.
Interesting news items today concerning Alito. According to the Christian Science Monitor, he voted on the pro-choice side in three of four abortion cases that he was a part of between 1990 and 2000. Also, boston.com reports that while he was a senior at Princeton he co-wrote a paper that called for the decriminalization of sodomy and the end of workplace discrimination against gays. I wonder how this will impact the adoration he’s been receiving from the right thus far.
Typical Democrats. Can’t focus on there own problems. Might be time to look in that mirror and realize the way you’re doing it. Isn’t the right way. Dean is a joke. Even the leadership doesn’t respect him. I use the word leadership very loosely.
The Democratic leadership may suck right now Angelus, but they certainly can’t look to the Republicans for an example of leadership done right. You can insult the left all you want, but the right is not in a better position right now. Like I said, all you have to do is look at current events to see that.
Insulting the Left is just too easy. I’m just trying to give you advice. You’re always so worried about Republicans but they do control the House, Senate, and the White House and it shows no signs of slowing up. They’re winning the debates over gay marriage, judiciary, national security and every other moral value out there. Yeah, I’d be mighty worried if I were you if I was backing that party. You don’t stand for anything. You have no ideas.
Liberals have only themselves to blame here. They won’t truly be themselves. They’re afraid to tell the people who they are and what they stand for. Is it so hard for them to come out and say this? Why can’t they come out and say we want higher taxes, we want more abortions, we want gay marriage, we peace and no war and less defense, we want the government involved in all aspects of life, we social security to stay the same, we want judges to make laws, and we want more spending. Be honest for once. It’s betetr than lying and not being yourselves.
Is this thing on?
Winning the debate on national security? How do you figure that one? The war and the president have never been so unpopular. I’d say the right is starting to lose that debate. Not to mention the outright disaster that Bush’s second term has been. I’m just giving you some advice. I’d be concerned if I was a Republican right now. Lots to worry about.
You got a better chance of Teddy Kennedy telling the truth about what happend at Chappaquidick than Liberal Democrats being honest about their views.
Wow. Nice response. Never heard that one from you before. I think there’s a broken record around here somewhere….
Angelus, Democrats are leading in the New Jersey senate race, hold a slight lead in the Virginia governor’s race, and most of Schwarzenegger’s special election resolutions are trailing. Bush’s poll numbers are near their all-time lows. I don’t know what you mean when you say your party is ‘winning debates’ since the republicans have lost on Social Security and are trying as hard as possible to make Alito look like the new O’Connor. If your party was really ascendant, they would be trumpeting his credentials as the new Scalia.
Mark Z, do you know how foolish your abortion argument sounds?
I just don’t trust Democrats in regards to national defense and taxes. And all the reports I hear about how Clinton let terrorists off and didn’t go after them make me realize I’m right.
Sort of like how Bush let Osama get away in Nov. 2001?
Not really Dave L. I’d like to hear it. Democrats are the party of abortions. They wouldn’t even let a pro life Deomcrat speak at their convention. How does that play? Tough to really argue they’re not the party of abortions. Not a seat at the table for anti abortion people at the Dem’s table.
Harry Reid is a pro-life Democrat Mark. I’m pretty sure that he is allowed to speak.
When was the last time Harry Reid came out and said anything pro life? He can’t now and that’s the problem. Your senators won’t even vote for judges who are over qualified because they don’t come out and say they’re for abortions. Way to have a litmus test.
Ted Kennedy was pro life once too. Now you won’t find a more hardcore abortion guy. Their party changes people. That’s what the devil (liberalism) does.
You said the democratic party wants “more abortions”. I would like you to find a quote anywhere where any political leader in the history of the United States has said that they would like to see more people having more abortions. I suppose you could find some examples from back when eugenics was big in the 1930s, but those don’t count.
If we’re arguing about abortion now, then I think everyone should realize this discussion is pointless. It’s not as if anyone’s mind is going to change. Agreed?
The Left’s one day of being nice ended pretty quick huh? I can just see Stella doing the Howard Dean Scream right now.
Constantly campaigning for more abortions and more abortion rights is one way of saying that they are in favor of more abortions right? Like if the number of abortions shot up to 500 million in 2005, you think the Democrats would say that was wrong or would they champion “choice”? Hmmmm.
Um, this discussion was started by Bicycle Bob, 6:24pm, and carried forward by a whole series of people. I don’t think the burden of being nice rests with the left, it rests on everyone.
Mark, you have two choices. Respond rationally to my request for evidence of your belief, or go on ranting to yourself. Discussion or echo chamber, your pick.
When Reid voted against John Roberts, the head of NOW said something to the effect that “he got the message loud and clear, we own him lock stock and barrel.” Not exactly the impression I’d want to convey if I were in the Democratic leadership.
Keep in mind the Democrats want us to live in a country that will let me daughter have an abortion without telling me and my wife but she can’t have a glass of wine to celebrate that momentous decision.
Just what they want to tell the public. They are lead by NARAL and People for the American Way.
Richard, I would hope that your relationship with your daughter is such that she would be comfortable coming to you with such a problem. And then you could all booze it up in the privacy of your own home.
OK, obviously we know how many of you feel about the Democrats. But wouldn’t you say that there is a growing rift in the GOP right now? John Danforth, a Missouri Republican and an Episcopal priest, criticizes evangelical Christians and says they are hurting the GOP. The fight within the GOP over Harriet Miers. John McCain fighting the White House over what the U.S. stance on detainee torture is and should be. Colin Powell’s constant fighting with Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, among others, while he was in the Bush White House (and his aide’s recent comments on how things work there). Isn’t it fair to say that there are a lot of problems in the GOP at the moment? A fight between the moderates and the Christian right?
u wish and hope and pray that theres a rift. the difference is the republican is a party and all inclusive. the debate over miers was a debate over principles and judiciary. not personal. isn’t that what a party should be debating and arguing about? not sheer hatred of someone?? u can’t see past ur hate.
I wish the Dem’s would say what their party stands for. Is it so hard to say you’re the anti-war party? Why run from that? The daily kos kids and the move on types say they’re taking over. They should. It’s about time.
Since when can’t big national parties have debates over policy? Isn’t that the reason for them? All the core values of the party are the same. The Liberals problem right now is they have no core values or principles.
They’re trying to play both sides against the middle and thats a recipe for disaster. As the past decade has shown. People don’t live in the depression anymore. No matter how many times you say it.
My father would have killed me if I went for an abortion without telling him. He would say its justifiable homicide. I tend to agree with him. If you’re going to have sex then you should be prepared to face the consequences. Abortion shouldn’t be used as birth control.
Can someone explain the logic of states dictating the abortion issue? Not Washington, not individual citizens… but the states?
That’s like saying what movies go into production should be decided by theaters owners rather than studio or audience demand.
If you don’t understand the concept of states rights than there is not much I can do for you. The founders did not have judges in mind when they designed who would have legislative power.
bob, the debate over Miers was vicious. People on the right were tearing her to shreds long before her hearings. It was not a rational debate within the party. Far from it. Some members of the right were furious over her nomination and made no attempt to hide that fact. Your version simply isn’t reality. You live in a black and white world where every single conservative is good and every single liberal is evil. That is delusional.
Of course there is nothing wrong with a political party conducting a debate with over their policies. That isn’t what I said. I was hoping that people might be able to see past their blind hatred and ackowledge that there is a lot of friction in the GOP right now. I don’t think there’s any denying that. But all anyone does is repeat the same crap over and over again. Republicans are all saints and Democrats are all devils.
I realize that there are plenty of problems on the left right now, especially leadership wise. That has been beaten to death here. I was hoping that the discussion could shift. I think there is a real struggle going on between moderate Republicans and the religious right. It’s one that’s worth discussing, in my opinion. I guess others here disagree, because they’d rather say “Liberals suck and have no ideas” over and over again.
Blustealer, it sounds like your father would have killed you if you had an abortion and either told him or didn’t tell him? Which is why courts have allowed that exception for minors to get the permisson of a judge. For situations where youths and their parents are unable to have a reasonable family discussion about it.
If birth control and condoms were more available in schools they the abortion rate would decline…as it has for over twenty years now.
the debate was vicious??? debating her credentials and qualifications is vicious now? deciding on whether someone that gets a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land isn’t the right thing to do anymore? and obviously bush got it right by accepting her withdrawal. the only people that will remember her are liberals who will be upset they didn’t support her with all they had. u had a golden chance and blew it. its too bad conservatives actual care about qualifications in regards to the supreme court and not some abortion litmus test.
If Bush got it right why did he nominate her in the first place?
It’s a shame they are trying to hide what they are about. I guess it doesn’t appeal to voters when you have the message “Abortions on demand here and you don’t even need to tell your husband!”
The majority of voters are not for that. That’s why they are disingenous of what they’re really about. If the people knew what kind of groups NARAL and the others were like they’d laugh in the Democrats faces.
That’s just what my father wants. The courts and a judge saying I can have an abortion for any reason. No matter what. You didn’t really understand my first post did you?
But Angelus, a majority of voters are pro-choice. Like it or not. bob, of course there should be a debate regarding a Supreme Count apointee. I never said otherwise. But saying that it remained civil and rational is totally false. She was bashed over and over again by the right wing, before they even knew what she was all about. She made a couple of speeches a decade ago that had them terrified about her stance on abortion and affirmative action and gay rights. So they attacked her. I’d say that is pretty vicious.
Actually, a majority of voters are pro life.
Angelus, a lot of your posts aure have to do with the secret agenda of the democratic party to destroy America. I guess I can’t blame you since I believe the republicans secretly want to impose a fundamentalist taliban on the country. But do you have any non-secret agenda evidence for what you say?
Blustealer, let me put it that way, extreme scenario: if a girl is raped by her abusive father, should she then have to ask him for permission to get an abortion? Those are the kind of situations which are what that part of the law is there.
Not true PandaBear. Like I said earlier, a 2004 Gallup poll found that 52% of Americans consider themselves pro-choice, compared to 41% pro-life. It is a small minority that want abortion banned in all cases, including when the health of the mother is at risk, rape and incest.
In just the past few years, the Liberal Democrats have had to run from big government, gun control, welfare, criminal rights and gay marriage. With the Alito nomination, it looks like the Democrats are going to have to renounce the NARAL’s and the People for the American Way ladies or prepare for another sad day after the 2006 elections.
CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll Aug. 28-30, 2005: Do you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?
Pro choice: 54%
Pro life: 38%
But of course you can find a poll that will flip the numbers around.
I don’t think I’ve had one post about secret conspiracies. They’re all in your head there. They don’t have any principles or ideas so how could they have a conspiracy?
Everything you say is “they’re trying to hide what they are about” “if America knew what they were about…”
It’s a lot of empty rhetoric.
So if you believe the poll numbers you throw up then why doesn’t the Democratic party admit they’re the abortion rights party? They’re a bunch of phonies. And you should really look at who was polled before you go quoting that. Because if memory serves right we have Republicans winning:
WH
House
Senate
And abortion rights voters tend to sway Democratic right? Somethings flawed.
these guys would rather kill a million babies than kill one terrorist. ask russ feingold (who i pray u got the sack to nominate in 08)
I’m leaving, I see that you righties, when faced with evidence opposing your arguments, immediately either change the subject or holler out some slogans. Enjoy.
We can pray for small miracles can’t we? LOL.
You know what they’ll do. They’ll try to send a moderate up there and cover up his true feelings and thoughts on everything and try to fool the voters. Original.
bob, I heard that is going to be Feingold’s campaign slogan. “Vote for Russ in ’08. I would rather kill a million babies than one terrorist.” Nice to see that you are sticking with reasobable arguments.
How is that so absurd? The Left is more concerned with abortion rights than national safety.
i’m actually helping the libs out there. run as who u are and what u stand for. no more of these fake candidates. run on ur issues. trying to be moderate or fake conservative doesn’t work anymore.
I expect more from you, dave l. You can’t have a discussion? You just exit stage left? No pun intended.
Anything more tedious than a pro abortion rant?
Okay, I’m back. I would love to have a discussion, Josh. Name your topic.
Mark, can you find me the text of a pro-abortion rant? Links?
Angelus: national security like tracking down a CIA leak?
Oh yeah, and if the repubs are so open about their agenda, then how do you feel about John Robert saying, in effect, that he will allow Roe to stand based on the principle of stare decisis?
Oh let the Republicans go on. They’re just sore that the Bush administration will never have the unity, peace, prosperity and general sense of optimism that the Clinton administration had. Did you see Billy-Boy at Rosa Parks’ funeral? The guy is still a rockstar.
If this is the GOP at the height of their powers, with the world in termoil and a country boiling with mistrust, its only a matter of time until they’re washed away. The lease will be up before you know it.
Thanks Steve, I should have stayed gone because I know that there’s no arguing but I hate to see ignorance go unchallenged.
I thought you left dave l. You weren’t lying now were you?
That’s the nature of the debate from the lefty crowd.
“you’re wrong. you suck. I’m leaving. I’m back to console my fellow brothers but you still suck. Kill a baby for fun.”
Where is the pro abortion talk? Every post you have made the past two days. Now you’re back tracking? Even Stella’s Boy wouldn’t do that.
I’m still here, ready to discuss whatever, and nobody has taken me up on it.
Please find, cut and paste, a pro-abortion text, anywhere on the internet. To prove once and for all your point.
I thought you left? I’m genuinely tired of your abortion talk. It makes me long for the dream state. It brings nothing new to the table. We get it. You’re for it. Congrats.
Seriously, could you see anybody on the far left bullying Clinton into changing one of his supreme court nominations? Bubba would have shoved his foot so far up their asses, they’d be tasting Cole Haan for a week.
I haven’t said anything about abortion. I’ve been requesting evidence from you folk to back up what you’ve been saying. No evidence has been forthcoming.
Why would the far left do that?????
They got the general counsel for the ACLU!!!
That’s the point. The got a far left person. Who’s is completely out of the judicial mainstream. Someone who wants the age of consent to be 12!
Jesus. Check your facts before you post. I know Lefty’s aren’t fond of “facts” but come on.
LOL.
Ruth Buzzy herself.
Josh,
If they don’t understand that. Then don’t even bother. Dealing with the kooks isn’t worth the time because they’ll never get it.
You want people to check their facts Josh? Fine. Show me exactly where someone stated that the age of consent should be 12. Word for word. I want to see that. I’m waiting.
Josh, what are you talking about? Why would the far left do what? Who’s the far left person?
Check her record and get back to me on that Stella. Do the research. It’s not hard to check her out. You should want to be informed.
Informed and the far left? That’s an oxymoron.
You are the one who said it Josh. The burden of proof is on you, not me. I didn’t say that. So you need to show me exactly where she said that. You claim to only deal in facts, so back up your talk. Show me where she said it.
The judiciary is over some peoples heads. It really shows now. Ginsburg is as hardcore a liberal as you can get. Just hope she doesn’t retire before ’08 now Lefty’s.
Actually, Stella, if you’re going to try and refute me then its on you. Because what I said is the truth. Obviously, you don’t have the first clue about Ginsburg or anything regarding the Supreme Court and the judiciary. You’re out of your element.
Stella’s Girl defend herself? HA. Fat chance.
Mark: I think you have a grab bag of one-liners that you just pop in whenever, eh?
I’ve been here for a long time now.
If there is one thing I don’t believe it”s Stella’s Boy knows anything about Ruth Buzzy. Yes, maam. Thems the facts.
I am not refuting you Josh. I never said that you are wrong. I want to be informed. It is your job to back up your statements. If I made a statement like that, you’d ask me for proof. I am merely doing the same. Obviously, you are full of shit if you can’t back up your claims. Something isn’t true just because you say it is Josh. I guess you’re a liar then, and you really don’t deal in facts.
I think I read somewhere that George Bush eats puppies. It’s true. If you don’t believe me, it’s your responsibility to find proof that what I just said is wrong.
My point is gentlemen, a strong president would have the confidence of his party. Ginsburg got in without much of a fight if I recall.
So I’m a “kook” now, huh? Well you’re a booger face!
Dick Cheney likes to have sex with 13 year-old girls. It is true. If you don’t believe me, you have to prove me wrong.
See, this is why I went away. Because arguments become circular and childish because they refuse to find evidence for their positions.
I did some research and the thing Josh is talking about is a 1974 paper about gender equality that tangentially brushes on the issue of age of consent. References available upon request.
“In a section of the 1974 report objecting to the ‘traditional sex discriminatory fashion’ in which the United States Code defined rape, Ginsburg cited a 1973 Senate bill as an example of legislation that better “conform[ed] to the equality principle.” One of the three circumstances that the bill established as constituting rape read as follows: “the other person is, in fact, less than twelve years old.” But Ginsburg was noting with approval only the measure’s gender-neutral language; she never directly addressed the clause regarding “age of consent.””
Timothy Noah of Slate did an extensive deconstruction of the age of consent controversy.
http://www.slate.com/id/2126491/
http://www.slate.com/id/2127110/
http://www.slate.com/id/2127250/
It should be pointed out that Graham’s claim is not the “smear” Noah makes it out to be, but a reasonable misinterpretation of the lack of clarity in the document in question.
A SHITLOAD OF POSTS
I guess if reason and logic were a part of these arguments, we probably wouldn’t be having these arguments. I must admit though, it’s very hard not to read them.
That’s why Poland should shut down this board.
And indeed, enough is enough.
Thank you all for playing… particularly those of you who played nicely.
We did okay for about 100 posts.