Indecision Update
The tides of my political persuasion, moving in and going out, are changing direction again.
I was moving toward Newt, taking contrarian comfort in supporting someone whom so many oppose. I also took comfort being in the same position as very respectable people, like Thomas Sowell, and others. But the fracas over judges has stopped that momentum. I listened to the Law Talk podcast with Richard Epstein, and today I read the column from George Will.
- Richard Epstein was a little over the top in his condemnation of Gingrich, which I attributed to Epstein’s devotion to the legal profession (nothing wrong with that). But he also made several arguments that are hard to deny. There’s a difference between judicial review and judicial supremacy. While we all have grave concerns about judicial supremacy, I think most of us will also adhere to the necessity of judicial review. Gingrich seems to be confusing them here.
- After all, if the three branches are equal (a key tenet in Gingrich’s position), then by that same token a Court could haul the president or a Congressman to appear before the court, just as Gingrich proposes to do against judges.
- George Will also made some good points. For one, judges already explain themselves. They write opinions. Of course, they aren’t cross-examined about their decisions, or challenged about them, but after all, no one would do that at a congressional hearing anyway. I believe John Yoo made the same point in the podcast.
- Will also pointed out that whereas individual judges may be fools, the judiciary as a whole has a self-corrective process that works somewhat efficiently; higher courts overturn decisions. The maniacal judge who so offended Gingrich was quickly reversed.
Much as I like Gingrich on many topics, and even though I’m against judicial arrogance myself, I can’t go along with this line of thought. Peter Robinson’s post yesterday on Jim Harbaugh prompted me to reflect on what makes a good leader. I repeated an old argument, that one task of leadership is to coordinate how a group approaches an issue – the leader forms and propagates an attitude. Well, if this is how Newt wants us to approach the judiciary … nah, I can’t buy this as my attitude.
Oh well. Back to neutral.
- Comment (30)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Dec '10
Re: Indecision Update
I heard Rick Santorum present a great idea this morning that splits the difference. He suggested reducing the 9th circuit's jurisdiction to just California and creating one or two more circuits to service the saner parts of the west coast. Ricky may not be going anywhere, but that was a great plan.
Apr '11
Re: Indecision Update
And this would accomplish what, exactly? Would it improve the quality of the justices' legal reasoning? Would they not still be the same guys whose signal accomplishment is that they have been reversed by the Supremes more often than any other court in the land?
Is California to be the "Junk Drawer of America?" The place where we throw the pieces of broken things, the extra screws, old rubber bands and bits of string "just in case?" Sorry, I don't see any merit in this idea. If it's not so broken that you're willing to junk it and replace it with something better, then leave it alone.
May '10
Re: Indecision Update
If a judge's decisions are overturned more often than not, then that's obviously a poor job performance which merits replacement of the judge.
Forget ideology. The 9th Circuit clogs up the judicial system and wastes taxpayer money.
When a boss must constantly correct a subordinate's work, that's not evidence of a "self-corrective" process. That's evidence that someone needs to be fired.
Jan '11
Re: Indecision Update
Actually, the guys addressed this on Law Talk - they weren't in favor of it. For one, all the non-California folks would exclaim 'Free at last!' Second, it would eventually become an insular worldview that only Californians would grasp ... meaning it would become essentially a state court.
There were other parts of the discussion, but frankly, as soon as I heard those objections, I conceded the point and waited for the next topic.
Dec '10
Re: Indecision Update
Herkybird
And this would accomplish what, exactly? Would it improve the quality of the justices' legal reasoning? Would they not still be the same guys whose signal accomplishment is that they have been reversed by the Supremes more often than any other court in the land?
Is California to be the "Junk Drawer of America?" The place where we throw the pieces of broken things, the extra screws, old rubber bands and bits of string "just in case?" Sorry, I don't see any merit in this idea. If it's not so broken that you're willing to junk it and replace it with something better, then leave it alone. · Dec 22 at 7:25am
It mostly works for the irony actually.
Dec '10
Re: Indecision Update
KC Mulville
Actually, the guys addressed this on Law Talk - they weren't in favor of it. For one, all the non-California folks would exclaim 'Free at last!' Second, it would eventually become an insular worldview that only Californians would grasp ... meaning it would become essentially a state court.
There were other parts of the discussion, but frankly, as soon as I heard those objections, I conceded the point and waited for the next topic. · Dec 22 at 8:24am
That's on the agenda to listen to today. I suppose I have too many friends in Cali to wish that fate on them anyway.
Sep '10
Re: Indecision Update
For the most part, this whole topic is way above my paygrade. Yeah, I'd like to see radical judges get some what-for every once in a while, but I clearly understand that issues like this cannot be decided on gut reactions.
My main concern on this issue (and many others), is that the opponents of Newt often debate his ideas in columns and cable shows in an increasingly dishonest fashion (NOTE: not meant to imply anything about Law Talk podcast as I have not listened!). Breathless analysts rush to their keyboard or TV set to condemn Newt as radical/zany/unhinged etc. etc. etc. etc. (I truly feel about fifty "etc.'s" are in order). Then I actually see Newt in a full appearance explaining his position in a calm, clear, and concise fashion and wonder what all the fuss is about. Even if I don't agree with Newt, he is almost always able to articulate his positions in a way that leaves me thinking, "I can see where he is coming from".
If all I knew about Newt was what Mark Steyn and Ann Coulter have written/said about him in the last couple of weeks...
Jun '10
Re: Indecision Update
MBF, you are the intended recipient of Newt's ideas. Great points in his defense.
This is our country -- we have a right to run it in a way consistent with US.
Here's my comment on the Law Talk page. Newt is creative in his endeavors to actually make a change in the direction that the people want. His 80/20 argument is that there are many items that most of the country want to see changed and are consistent with conservative values and there is a super-majority behind it. There is a small minority (think Bolsheviks) who are bullies and don't give a damn about what the citizens of this country think. They are very disdainful of us.
Newt has looked at this 80/20 polling data. He just has to go through them one at a time and suggest things to do to bring a majority to the polls in our favor. Why do none of the other politicians think this way?
Mar '11
Re: Indecision Update
Given that "Liberal" "Progressives" are taking over the country through the courts and education system, I think a little push back by Newt is entirely reasonable.
I am no legal expert, but respect Mark Levin's opinion (more so than Mr Will) - he was generally supportive of Newt in last Friday's program, I think it was.
Dec '10
Re: Indecision Update
First, being the least republican institution, the judiciary should be the inferior branch of government. I never bought into the co-equal branch nonsense and I wonder who first invented it. Is it in the Federalist papers?
Second, to see just how powerful the judiciary is, look at the cottage industry it produces: Lawyers are half the Senate and a third of the House of "Representatives". It's an insulated cabal. Lawyers are the lubricant by which corruption enters the body politic. Tom Hagen wasn't an engineer or a marketing expert or even a financial whiz.
Third, if we are going to have philosopher kings, can we at least have some who knows long division? Being a native English speaker is usually the highest barrier to entry for the profession. Nobody says "I have to change my major because I flunked that impossible political science course."
As Scalia pointed out, the law is a nonproductive profession and it is distressing when it attracts talented people.
Dec '10
Re: Indecision Update
Trivia question: Name the last Democrat party nominee for POTUS or VPOTUS who did not go to law school.
Jul '10
Re: Indecision Update
AmishDude, James Madison in Federalist #47 writes: "One of the principal objections inculcated by the more respectable adversaries to the Constitution, is its supposed violation of the political maxim, that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments ought to be separate and distinct... No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty, than that on which the objection is founded. The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
May '10
Re: Indecision Update
Jimmy Carter was an Annapolis grad, so obviously he wasn't a lawyer. And AlGore was an English major.
Dec '10
Re: Indecision Update
I am back to Rick Perry.
Nov '10
Re: Indecision Update
Perhaps you heard a different interview with Gingrich than I did. While some have pulled out single sentences from it to infer that he seemed to think the president can and should occasionally haul judges off the bench in cuffs unilaterally to answer to him, his argument based on coequality in the interview I saw explicitly stated that it works in three ways: President and congress can override the judiciary, Judiciary and constress can override the president, and president and judiciary can override congress. Sounds pretty co-equal to me. He asserts (as do many) that the intention of the founders was that the judiciary should be the weakest of the three; I don't know about that point, and Newt uncharacteristically salted his interview with the assertion that he is not a scholar on this matter, but that this is his honest reading in accord to what his heart tells him is the correct reading of the constitution. The historical precedents he brings out are pretty compelling. But all this nit-picking over fine points of law leaves me a bit cold. Seems like a feeding frenzy to me.
Nov '10
Re: Indecision Update
I love Ron Paul, in many respects, especially his domestic policy, but this clip is enough to convince me that he is only a side show, as if his foreign policy hadn't already ruled him out.
Jun '10
Re: Indecision Update
I for one am tired of Congressmen and Presidents who when asked "but is that bill Constitutional?" respond with "well we need to pass it first so the Supreme Court can decide."
If both branches defer to the judiciary as a matter of habit then the branches aren't really equal. For checks and balances to be effective each branch must be willing to stand up for itself. I'd rather err on the side of a President who will challenge judicial arrogance too aggressively than one who will be overly meek.
Dec '10
Re: Indecision Update
EJHill
Jimmy Carter was an Annapolis grad, so obviously he wasn't a lawyer. And AlGore was an English major. · Dec 22 at 12:34pm
Ah, but Al Gore actually went to law school. And flunked out, which I am told is rather difficult to manage. (Harvard brags about its 97% graduation rate, for instance.)
Edited on Dec 22, 2011 at 5:31pmDec '10
Re: Indecision Update
Your quote, however, does not say co-equal.
Jan '11
Re: Indecision Update
A serious re-reading of the Kansas City school desegregation decision - a judicial, not legislative decision - which imposed more than a billion dollar tax increase on the local citizens, and the terrible outcomes that resulted from that well intentioned but abysmally ignorant thinking, should be mandatory before commenting on the pros and cons of judicial activism.
Gingrich was absolutely right.
Edited on Dec 22, 2011 at 6:12pm