Monday, October 17, 2005
'Roberts Court' not so bad maybe....
Breaking on Fox: Supremes turn down effort by the so-called, and I use the term loosely, and I quote, "Justice", end quote, department to steal 280 billion dollars from tobacco companies.
Amazing! Supremes actually agree that theft is illegal! Maybe we're on the road back toward sanity at last?
We DO NOT need a Harriet Miers on this court. We DO NOT need a new occupant of the bench who can "see the fifth argument when four are on the table", as Condi Rice unhelpfully described Miers.
On the big hot-button cases there is exactly one valid argument, the one provided by the Constitution. And that argument always leads to exactly one conclusion: the Federal level has no business getting involved in this law, no matter which side the Feds were trying to take. I'll grant that the majority of the court's cases -- the unexciting stuff about water rights or bankruptcy -- can have several sides, none of which is absolutely required. That's where an experienced judge is needed, regardless of ideology. Miers doesn't meet that test either. ¶ 7:13 AM
Amazing! Supremes actually agree that theft is illegal! Maybe we're on the road back toward sanity at last?
We DO NOT need a Harriet Miers on this court. We DO NOT need a new occupant of the bench who can "see the fifth argument when four are on the table", as Condi Rice unhelpfully described Miers.
On the big hot-button cases there is exactly one valid argument, the one provided by the Constitution. And that argument always leads to exactly one conclusion: the Federal level has no business getting involved in this law, no matter which side the Feds were trying to take. I'll grant that the majority of the court's cases -- the unexciting stuff about water rights or bankruptcy -- can have several sides, none of which is absolutely required. That's where an experienced judge is needed, regardless of ideology. Miers doesn't meet that test either. ¶ 7:13 AM
