Tuesday, June 29, 2010
More on the Kagan Confirmation Hearings
I have watched a good deal of the Senate Judiciary confirmation hearings on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Those who see me daily in courtrooms across East Tennessee know that my ego - which everyone (correctly) says that I have in political settings - isn't nearly as strong in court. This probably leads back to my never wanting to practice law. In any case, I always give great deference to those whom I believe to be the intellectual heavyweights of the courthouse. Besides all of the judges (and because I am in demand, I wouldn't practice in front of judges that I didn't respect on all accounts), I take a backseat to lawyers like Joe Costner, Public Defender Mack Garner, Jim Hickman, Jeff Stern, and others. I don't consider myself to be in the same class as these guys. Do I work hard and get positive results? Sure. Do I oftentimes get results that some attorneys may not have achieved? I suppose so. But I don't consider myself to be one of the philosopher kings that sometimes appear in our East Tennessee courts.
Which leads me back to my viewing of the confirmation hearings today. In no way is Elena Kagan an intellectual heavyweight. Far from it. She doesn't deserve to carry Mack Garner's briefcase.
To my amazement, if Elena Kagan is confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United States, I am confident in stating that I am more qualified and more intellectually prepared for the job than a sitting U.S. Supreme Court justice. I suppose I should send a "thank you" note to President Obama for boosting my confidence.
Those who see me daily in courtrooms across East Tennessee know that my ego - which everyone (correctly) says that I have in political settings - isn't nearly as strong in court. This probably leads back to my never wanting to practice law. In any case, I always give great deference to those whom I believe to be the intellectual heavyweights of the courthouse. Besides all of the judges (and because I am in demand, I wouldn't practice in front of judges that I didn't respect on all accounts), I take a backseat to lawyers like Joe Costner, Public Defender Mack Garner, Jim Hickman, Jeff Stern, and others. I don't consider myself to be in the same class as these guys. Do I work hard and get positive results? Sure. Do I oftentimes get results that some attorneys may not have achieved? I suppose so. But I don't consider myself to be one of the philosopher kings that sometimes appear in our East Tennessee courts.
Which leads me back to my viewing of the confirmation hearings today. In no way is Elena Kagan an intellectual heavyweight. Far from it. She doesn't deserve to carry Mack Garner's briefcase.
To my amazement, if Elena Kagan is confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United States, I am confident in stating that I am more qualified and more intellectually prepared for the job than a sitting U.S. Supreme Court justice. I suppose I should send a "thank you" note to President Obama for boosting my confidence.
Labels: Firm Life, President Obama, SCOTUS
Monday, June 28, 2010
Kagen was a Bad Dean, will be a Bad Supreme Court Justice
There are a few great young scholars that have come out of Harvard Law (like Austin Bramwell). Among them is Ben Shapiro, who Ann Coulter pushed as a Supreme Court nominee when President Bush was looking to fill a vacancy on the Court.
Ben is in a unique situation because he has some experience with Elena Kagen, the ghost-like vapor with no real qualifications that President Obama has nominated to the Supreme Court. And, to listen to Ben and his tale of Kagen's blundering in Harvard's erroneous stand against the United States Military, what we do know should lead us to believe that Kagen has no place on the Supreme Court.
Now, Kagen told the Senate Judiciary Committee that she would be a model of impartiality and would act with deference to Congress. Of course, her lies before the Senate are as meaningless as Obama's campaign promises. Don't believe me? Obama's first SCOTUS nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, stated at her confirmation hearing that she saw situations where the individual right to bear arms existed. This was contrary to her prior opinions (as stated by Cato Institute Fellow David Kopel in his report to the Senate Judiciary Committee) and, today, to her vote with the minority in today's decision in McDonald v. Chicago.
It's interesting that the Right sees the problems with Kagen, just as they did with Harriet Miers. Yet, the Left - those who supposedly think for themselves and question authority - seem to march in lockstep with Obama's edict that Kagen is deserving of a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. They figure that if she's good enough for Obama, then she's good enough for them. Of course, if they keep putting forth intellectual lightweights as SCOTUS nominees, we will all suffer when the unfortunate day comes when Sotomayor or Kagen authors an opinion that actually manipulates a fundamental right.
It's interesting reading, for sure. The whole Kagen discussion probably amounts to nothing, because Senate Republicans don't have the cojones to band together and keep the unqualified nominee off of the bench. It doesn't make her more qualified, however, and we all need to realize that sooner rather than later.
Ben is in a unique situation because he has some experience with Elena Kagen, the ghost-like vapor with no real qualifications that President Obama has nominated to the Supreme Court. And, to listen to Ben and his tale of Kagen's blundering in Harvard's erroneous stand against the United States Military, what we do know should lead us to believe that Kagen has no place on the Supreme Court.
Now, Kagen told the Senate Judiciary Committee that she would be a model of impartiality and would act with deference to Congress. Of course, her lies before the Senate are as meaningless as Obama's campaign promises. Don't believe me? Obama's first SCOTUS nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, stated at her confirmation hearing that she saw situations where the individual right to bear arms existed. This was contrary to her prior opinions (as stated by Cato Institute Fellow David Kopel in his report to the Senate Judiciary Committee) and, today, to her vote with the minority in today's decision in McDonald v. Chicago.
It's interesting that the Right sees the problems with Kagen, just as they did with Harriet Miers. Yet, the Left - those who supposedly think for themselves and question authority - seem to march in lockstep with Obama's edict that Kagen is deserving of a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. They figure that if she's good enough for Obama, then she's good enough for them. Of course, if they keep putting forth intellectual lightweights as SCOTUS nominees, we will all suffer when the unfortunate day comes when Sotomayor or Kagen authors an opinion that actually manipulates a fundamental right.
It's interesting reading, for sure. The whole Kagen discussion probably amounts to nothing, because Senate Republicans don't have the cojones to band together and keep the unqualified nominee off of the bench. It doesn't make her more qualified, however, and we all need to realize that sooner rather than later.
Labels: President Obama, SCOTUS, U.S. Senate
Monday, August 10, 2009
Bork, Lamar, and the Supreme Court
"The neutral or nonpolitical application of principle has been discussed in connection with (Herbert) Wechsler's discussion in Brown v. Board of Education. It is a requirement, like the others, addressed to the judge's integrity. Having derived and defined the principle to be applied, he must apply it consistently and without regard to his sympathy or lack of sympathy with the parties before him. This does not mean that the judge will never change the principle he has derived and defined. Anybody who has dealt extensively with the law knows that a new case may seem to fall within a principle as stated and yet not fall within the rationale underlying it. As new cases present new patterns, the principle will often be restated and redefined. There is nothing wrong with that; it is , in fact, highly desirable. But the judge must be clarifying his own reasoning and verbal formulations and not trimming to arrive at results desired on grounds extraneous to the Constitution. This requires a fair degree of sophistication and self-consciousness on the part of the judge. The only external discipline to which the judge is subject is the scrutiny of professional observers who will be able to tell over a period of time whether or not he is displaying intellectual integrity."
The above is from Robert Bork's essay "The Case Against Political Judging," which is included in his recent book, A Time to Speak. It's a phenomenal book, although not a page turner. It includes some of his briefs (such as in the case on the constitutionality of the death penalty, Gregg v. Georgia), more noted opinions, articles, columns, debates, and even some pieces outside of the legal realm. It's probably best read in a piecemeal manner; that's how I approached it. At 715 pages, the amount of information contained in the book is immense. However, unlike some of the academic texts that I have been sent over the years, this one is quite readable. (For some reason, various philosopher kings author books that are written on an overly advanced level. Yes, I can read those books, but I certainly don't enjoy reading those books...) It would make an excellent addition to anyone's library, especially conservative lawyers.
Although it seems a little too late, I would like to have passed this text on to my friend, Senator Lamar Alexander. As a member of the Senate, I would have liked for Lamar to have referred to Bork's text when contemplating his vote on (now Justice) Sotomayor. I would have challenged Lamar to think if Bork, when speaking of the qualities of a good, strong, impartial judge, would have approved of this particular nominee.
Along those lines, I'm not particularly angry at the confirmation of Sotomayor to SCOTUS. She is a sure-fire liberal vote, much like the man she's replacing. And, like Souter, she's an intellectual lightweight who can't hold her own with others already on the Court. That's why I'm not mad. There are other, more sinister candidates that Obama could have chosen. Perhaps if another vacancy is created during Obama's term as POTUS (and it is likely), I should make sure that Lamar has A Time to Speak on his desk in D.C.
Labels: Books, Judiciary, President Obama, SCOTUS
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Red State Update: Sotomayor the Racist
Jackie and Dunlap talk about saloons, George Jefferson, Jennifer Lopez, and New York racists.
Labels: Red State Update, SCOTUS, Videos
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Sessions? Is that French?
Way to lay down, Monsieur Sessions. What was that - like 24 hours of backbone? It must have been excruciating to hold out that long for the 60 million Americans who rejected Obama's socialist agenda with their votes last November. Guess that teaches us for placing our faith in someone from the state of the Crimson Tide.
I bet the Tennessee Republican Party is ecstatic. Nothing like having a strong keynote speaker for the Statesmen's Dinner in July...
Labels: Filibuster, President Obama, SCOTUS
Friday, October 17, 2008
SCOTUS to Weigh In On Rampent Voter Fraud?
Interesting news out of Ohio:
COLUMBUS: Ohio's top elections chief has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in a dispute over whether the state is required to do more to help counties verify voter eligibility, a spokesman for her office said Thursday.
Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, a Democrat, filed an appeal the high court late Wednesday, said spokesman Jeff Ortega.
On Tuesday, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati sided with the Ohio Republican Party and ordered Brunner to set up a system that provides names of newly registered voters whose driver's license numbers or Social Security numbers don't match records in other government databases.
Apparently, there are well over 200,000 ACORN-tainted new voting registration applications that have mismatched data in Ohio alone. Conservatives best start fighting back against this obvious corruption, lest their system of government be stolen from them forever.
COLUMBUS: Ohio's top elections chief has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in a dispute over whether the state is required to do more to help counties verify voter eligibility, a spokesman for her office said Thursday.
Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, a Democrat, filed an appeal the high court late Wednesday, said spokesman Jeff Ortega.
On Tuesday, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati sided with the Ohio Republican Party and ordered Brunner to set up a system that provides names of newly registered voters whose driver's license numbers or Social Security numbers don't match records in other government databases.
Apparently, there are well over 200,000 ACORN-tainted new voting registration applications that have mismatched data in Ohio alone. Conservatives best start fighting back against this obvious corruption, lest their system of government be stolen from them forever.
Labels: 2008 General Election, SCOTUS, Sixth Circuit, Voter Fraud
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Virginia Congressman Tells Bush to Quit Trying to Outlaw Firearms
Thanks to a brief filed in District of Columbia v. Heller, the premier Second Amendment Supreme Court case in the past 70 years, we now have proof that the Bush Administration has been decidedly pro-gun control. That brief was filed on behalf of the Administration by Bush's own Solicitor General.
In the following letter, Congressman Virgil Goode (R-VA) lets Bush know that he's in the wrong on this one:
January 22, 2008
President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington DC 20500
Dear President Bush:
Your Solicitor General has just filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the D.C. v. Heller case arguing that categorical gun bans of virtually all self-defense firearms are constitutional if a court determines they are "reasonable" -- the lowest standard of constitutional review.
If this view prevails, a national ban on all firearms -- including hunting rifles -- could be constitutional, even if the court decides -- on ample historical evidence -- that the Founders intended the Second Amendment as an individual right.
I would ask that you direct the Justice Department to withdraw this unfortunate brief and to replace it with an opinion which reflects the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Virgil Goode
Gun Owners of America has generated this press release along the same lines. The National Rifle Association has issued several statements regarding the amici briefs. Say Uncle also has a few thoughts.
The Administration's brief is a real shame. It gets quite a bit of the argument right, and then it takes a horrid turn for the worse about 2/3 of the way through, venturing into some fantasyland where criminals abide by the laws and machine guns can be found as easily as crack cocaine. It makes one wonder if President Bush really did support the Brady Gun Ban, that it wasn't just lip service that he hated to see it go when it lapsed back in 2004.
I guess we can chalk this up to another issue that went wrong under President Bush.
In the following letter, Congressman Virgil Goode (R-VA) lets Bush know that he's in the wrong on this one:
January 22, 2008
President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington DC 20500
Dear President Bush:
Your Solicitor General has just filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the D.C. v. Heller case arguing that categorical gun bans of virtually all self-defense firearms are constitutional if a court determines they are "reasonable" -- the lowest standard of constitutional review.
If this view prevails, a national ban on all firearms -- including hunting rifles -- could be constitutional, even if the court decides -- on ample historical evidence -- that the Founders intended the Second Amendment as an individual right.
I would ask that you direct the Justice Department to withdraw this unfortunate brief and to replace it with an opinion which reflects the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Virgil Goode
Gun Owners of America has generated this press release along the same lines. The National Rifle Association has issued several statements regarding the amici briefs. Say Uncle also has a few thoughts.
The Administration's brief is a real shame. It gets quite a bit of the argument right, and then it takes a horrid turn for the worse about 2/3 of the way through, venturing into some fantasyland where criminals abide by the laws and machine guns can be found as easily as crack cocaine. It makes one wonder if President Bush really did support the Brady Gun Ban, that it wasn't just lip service that he hated to see it go when it lapsed back in 2004.
I guess we can chalk this up to another issue that went wrong under President Bush.
Labels: SCOTUS, Second Amendment
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
SCOTUS Issues Several Rulings
The U.S. Supreme Court handed down several opinions yesterday, and generally one can see a trend towards a Right-leaning Court beginning to form. Two of the more remarkable aspects of yesterday's rulings were victories for free speech in striking down part of McCain-Feingold and the barring of taxpayer standing as a way of attacking faith-based organizations that apply for federal funding under President Bush's Faith-based Initiative.
How Appealing has a run down of the four rulings from Monday, including links to the opinions issued by the Court.
The AP's Mark Sherman has a good summation, including a quote from Democrat John Edwards that stenches of hyperbole.
How Appealing has a run down of the four rulings from Monday, including links to the opinions issued by the Court.
The AP's Mark Sherman has a good summation, including a quote from Democrat John Edwards that stenches of hyperbole.
Labels: First Amendment, Free Speech, SCOTUS
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Thursday Government Lagniappe
Too many government programs and candidates to expose, too little time...
So today I am forced to provide a few helpful links that I thought worth reading. Enjoy the thoughts of -
Ron Paul on the sham Senate immigration compromise and how he plans to introduce a constitutional amendment that would actually help our immigration crisis;
Judge Roy Moore on the budgetary Frankenstein known as Pre-K that now has a willing servant in eventual Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton;
Pat Buchanan on why the Democratic Party was wise to throw the anti-war Left under the bus with an eye towards victory in 2008;
Ed Whelan on Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's political activism regarding Title VII of the Civil Rights Act; and
Carla Howell on how Mitt Romney is no friend of conservatives through his fiscal actions as Governor of Massachusetts.
So today I am forced to provide a few helpful links that I thought worth reading. Enjoy the thoughts of -
Ron Paul on the sham Senate immigration compromise and how he plans to introduce a constitutional amendment that would actually help our immigration crisis;
Judge Roy Moore on the budgetary Frankenstein known as Pre-K that now has a willing servant in eventual Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton;
Pat Buchanan on why the Democratic Party was wise to throw the anti-war Left under the bus with an eye towards victory in 2008;
Ed Whelan on Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's political activism regarding Title VII of the Civil Rights Act; and
Carla Howell on how Mitt Romney is no friend of conservatives through his fiscal actions as Governor of Massachusetts.
Labels: 2008 GOP Presidential Primary, Immigration, Iraq, Pre-K, Ron Paul, SCOTUS
Friday, February 02, 2007
Does this robe make me look fat?
There's a very interesting article on The American Lawyer's site regarding the Supreme Court's historically low workload and (in turn) their schmoozing for the public.
The author, Dahlia Lithwick, makes some good points. The Roberts Court seems more interested in what the public thinks about them than the workhorse Burger Court or the early years of the Rehnquist Court.
I'll go even further than Lithwick - the Justices are becoming no different than their political counterparts in the Legislative and Executive branches. Heck, they even have people spinning their stats. Take a look at this information on the SCOTUS caseload found on the Supreme Court website. Now that's some good spin! It hides the truth by citing unexplained stats that, when taken into context, mean nothing whatsoever. Mitt Romney needs to find out who wrote that bunk and hire him or her for his political spin machine.
This begs the question: if these Justices are going to act like pure politicians, should we consider going about the process of judicial selection for the Supreme Court through popular elections, as several states already do for their high courts?
The author, Dahlia Lithwick, makes some good points. The Roberts Court seems more interested in what the public thinks about them than the workhorse Burger Court or the early years of the Rehnquist Court.
I'll go even further than Lithwick - the Justices are becoming no different than their political counterparts in the Legislative and Executive branches. Heck, they even have people spinning their stats. Take a look at this information on the SCOTUS caseload found on the Supreme Court website. Now that's some good spin! It hides the truth by citing unexplained stats that, when taken into context, mean nothing whatsoever. Mitt Romney needs to find out who wrote that bunk and hire him or her for his political spin machine.
This begs the question: if these Justices are going to act like pure politicians, should we consider going about the process of judicial selection for the Supreme Court through popular elections, as several states already do for their high courts?
Labels: SCOTUS
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Supreme Court to hear case on "faith-based" financing
The U.S. Supreme Court announced Friday that it would hear Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, the first challenge of the Bush Administration's extension of government aid to "faith-based" public interest organizations.
The interesting thing about Hein is that the basis of the appeal is not the Establishment Clause, as one might suspect. No, this case involves taxpayer standing - the ability of any citizen taxpayer to bring suit against the government for spending their money in an unapproved way, which in this case is through the funding of organizations with a religious bent that perform social work within communities.
SCOTUS hasn't traditionally looked kindly towards taxpayer standing. I would be surprised if it did so in this case.
MORE: SCOTUS Blog
The interesting thing about Hein is that the basis of the appeal is not the Establishment Clause, as one might suspect. No, this case involves taxpayer standing - the ability of any citizen taxpayer to bring suit against the government for spending their money in an unapproved way, which in this case is through the funding of organizations with a religious bent that perform social work within communities.
SCOTUS hasn't traditionally looked kindly towards taxpayer standing. I would be surprised if it did so in this case.
MORE: SCOTUS Blog
Labels: Freedom of Religion, SCOTUS
