The Socialist Judge: Elena Kagan and the Teachable Moment

First of all I will identify myself, politically, as being an Independent voting based upon substnace rather than passionate rhetoric.

To the latter, voices within the Tea Party, as well as those outside, have available to themselves the same historical and current information.

In regards to Supreme Court nominees, there is no Constitutional provision for the 'number' of justices comprising the Court. There is, however, an explicit reponsibilty for the sitting president to nominate and congress to confirm justices and Chief Justice.

The caveat which occurs more often than not is the president's choices for the high court apply Constitutional Law to cases heard outside the political concerns of their appointing president.

Perhaps the most compelling case of this tendency is that of Chief Justice Earl Warren who was nominated by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. It was the Miranda v. Arizona decision which crossed the will of the conservatives, yet, I think it is safe to say that extension of our 5th Amendment rights (self incrimination) during police interrogation were dutifully protected in the close 5-4 decision.

It is the duly elected president's perogative to choose, and present, his nominee to congress for confirmation as a part of his Constitutional duties. How that nominee performs after confirmation is anyone's guess at best.

To instill 'fear' about views of a nominee's political views affecting bench performance is simply based in ignorance of Supreme Court history.

This also extends to the lectorate as well. History shows it was the Democrats which advocated and passed through both houses the 19th Amendment (Womens Suffrage and Right to Vote) in 1920. Consequently, women overwhelmingly voted Republican in the next general election.

The lesson here is the fears of what may be rarely bear fruit and often result in further stagnation of progress.

Locus

You need to be a member of Command Center to add comments!

Join Command Center

Comments

Cathy O'Brien May 29, 2010 at 1:11pm

Thanks for the support, Michael
Cathy O'Brien May 15, 2010 at 2:56pm

Amen, Toddy. Being non-combative, I do not engage loons, but cheer those who can wipe the floor with them, using knowledge of our history and common sense.
Locus Americus May 15, 2010 at 5:47am

First of all I will identify myself, politically, as being an Independent voting based upon substnace rather than passionate rhetoric.

To the latter, voices within the Tea Party, as well as those outside, have available to themselves the same historical and current information.

In regards to Supreme Court nominees, there is no Constitutional provision for the 'number' of justices comprising the Court. There is, however, an explicit reponsibilty for the sitting president to nominate and congress to confirm justices and Chief Justice.

The caveat which occurs more often than not is the president's choices for the high court apply Constitutional Law to cases heard outside the political concerns of their appointing president.

Perhaps the most compelling case of this tendency is that of Chief Justice Earl Warren who was nominated by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. It was the Miranda v. Arizona decision which crossed the will of the conservatives, yet, I think it is safe to say that extension of our 5th Amendment rights (self incrimination) during police interrogation were dutifully protected in the close 5-4 decision.

It is the duly elected president's perogative to choose, and present, his nominee to congress for confirmation as a part of his Constitutional duties. How that nominee performs after confirmation is anyone's guess at best.

To instill 'fear' about views of a nominee's political views affecting bench performance is simply based in ignorance of Supreme Court history.

This also extends to the lectorate as well. History shows it was the Democrats which advocated and passed through both houses the 19th Amendment (Womens Suffrage and Right to Vote) in 1920. Consequently, women overwhelmingly voted Republican in the next general election.

The lesson here is the fears of what may be rarely bear fruit and often result in further stagnation of progress.

Locus

This reply was deleted.