Thursday, July 21, 2005

Brains in Exile: a Survey of the Worst Opinions on the Roberts Nomination


When I was but a wee lad in elementary school, I was taught the difference between "fact" and "opinion". "Facts" were provable things, and thus sometimes a person's assertion of "fact" could be "wrong". On the other hand, "opinions" by their very nature could never be characterized as "wrong".

But then again, the phrase "lickspittle idiots" never appeared in my third grade speller.

And so we begin our peregrinations around the most insipid of "opinions" regarding the Supreme Court nominee with Old Faithful Predictable: the Strib:

...if he indicates he subscribes to the beliefs of Scalia, Thomas and other supporters of the so-called "Constitution in exile" -- meaning the Constitution as it was interpreted prior to the New Deal -- then he should not be confirmed.

"Constitution in exile"? "So called"? I haven't heard this term yet. And I'm certain that it hasn't been so widely or prominently used to merit describing it as "so called". I wonder if the Strib got the Dem's talking points memo early and jumped the gun.

And BTW what's wrong with interpreting the Constitution as it was before the New Deal? FDR's nominees, pursuant to his desire to "pack the court" with judges so far afield that they would interpret the Commerce Clause (and later, for their own reasons, the Due Process clauses) to mean whatever helped FDR's New Deal programs pass constitutional muster, were not the ones who "exiled the Constitution"? Antonin Scalia - a justice who believes you ought to read what's actually in the damn document rather than what's not in it - is exiling the constitution?

Remember way back when if the Constitution was silent - or wrong - about some current aspect of American life, we just amended it? We don't need to do that any more because judges like the type that the Strib loves do it for us. Good thing too - they're so much smarter than we are.

But the lefties whine; "But amending the Constitution is sooooo haaaaaard, and it takes soooooooo loooooong!"

Yes, but it's constitutional.

Blow me you morons.

Speaking of morons, lets go to the letters:

President Bush made his nomination of a Supreme Court justice early to take the heat off Karl Rove, and the Star Tribune bought it hook, line and sinker.

On Wednesday, the nomination dominated the front page, and the Karl Rove scandal was on A5.

Vern Kohlhof, Apple Valley.

You're on to something Vern - if that is your real name. Because we all just *know* that the drooling DFL hacks that comprise the Strib's editorial board would never want to see Rove's head on a platter.

After a performance of geniality and promises to consult with both parties in Congress, George W. Bush picked a Republican politico for the Supreme Court.

The man who prides himself on his "leadership" had an opportunity to show some by nominating a judge who is a partisan of the law rather than of a particular political party. Instead, Congress winds up for yet another partisan debate.

A good leader wouldn't have to rely so much on ideological cronies.

Donna Callender, Edina.

Oh Donna. I point you to the reference about FDR's court packing mentioned above, and ask you (and those like you) the following question:

Was FDR a bad "leader" for appointing partisan politico cronies who never found a constitutional infirmity with anything he did?

I didn't think so. Blow me you morons.

We conclude our tour of mindless judicial rhetoric with - what else? - the New York Times (via the Pi Press):

The far right is on a drive to resurrect ancient, and discredited, states' rights theories. If extremists take control of the Supreme Court, we will end up with an America in which the federal government is powerless to protect against air pollution, unsafe working conditions and child labor. There are reasons to be concerned about Roberts on this score. He dissented in an Endangered Species Act case in a way that suggested he might hold an array of environmental laws, and other important federal protections, to be unconstitutional.

"Discredited states' rights theories". Heh.

How an "extremist" reads the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

And how a "moderate" in the eyes of the Times reads that same piece of text:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States courts respectively, or to the people Democratic party, unless the courts see it otherwise in the penumbrae that we, the Framers, have cleverly hidden herein.

Blow me you morons.

No comments: