There are two approaches to justice.
The party who says "I'll see you in court!" expects impartial treatment.
The one who says, "I'll see you before His Honour!" expects preferential treatment.
The administration has made clear its preference for the latter approach. The American public, even conservatives, appear to prefer the former. The linked article does indicate a preference for "conservative" over "liberal" judges, despite the desire for thorough scrutiny.
Here's a novel idea. What say the administration nominates the best judges, not the best conservative judges or the best liberal judges? If they have any value at all in their role, it will be due to an ability to leave ideology at the courthouse door and consider cases before them on merit, not against the fixed templates of partisan and sectarian polity. That group of lefty pinkos who wrote that quaint document, the Constitution, apparently had something of the sort in mind.
One measure of a party's confidence in its ideas is a willingness to subject them to the sort of impartial scrutiny that only an independent judiciary can deliver. Measured by that standard, the Neoconservative gauleiters again fail miserably.
Give me judges who think (Think, n: a brain activity the opposite of ideology) . Irish in-laws notwithstanding, I'll happily abide the decisions.
The party who says "I'll see you in court!" expects impartial treatment.
The one who says, "I'll see you before His Honour!" expects preferential treatment.
The administration has made clear its preference for the latter approach. The American public, even conservatives, appear to prefer the former. The linked article does indicate a preference for "conservative" over "liberal" judges, despite the desire for thorough scrutiny.
Here's a novel idea. What say the administration nominates the best judges, not the best conservative judges or the best liberal judges? If they have any value at all in their role, it will be due to an ability to leave ideology at the courthouse door and consider cases before them on merit, not against the fixed templates of partisan and sectarian polity. That group of lefty pinkos who wrote that quaint document, the Constitution, apparently had something of the sort in mind.
One measure of a party's confidence in its ideas is a willingness to subject them to the sort of impartial scrutiny that only an independent judiciary can deliver. Measured by that standard, the Neoconservative gauleiters again fail miserably.
Give me judges who think (Think, n: a brain activity the opposite of ideology) . Irish in-laws notwithstanding, I'll happily abide the decisions.
posted by Uncle | 00:06
1 Comments:
Well, I think the best possible outcome is what has happened several times in our lifetimes – wacko rightwingers appoint wacko rightwing judges, who then make sensible and even liberal decisions once they have their tenured appointments.
There can be something beautiful about knowledge. The Ann Coulters and Rush Limbaughs tend to pretend that universities hire liberal professors, who then push their agenda on susceptible youth. They never seem to consider that they more you know, the more complete your frame of reference is, the less likely you are to delude yourself with rightwing fantasies.
I personally would love to see Shrub push through a bunch of avowed archconservatives to the federal and Supreme Court benches, only to watch helplessly as they interpret the Constitution fairly and act as a check on the other two branches.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home