Thursday, May 28, 2009
Book Recommendation
In light of the recent discussion of Judge Sotomayor's judicial philosophy, everyone (and especially those with some background in law) should read Judge Robert Bork's The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law. I am reading this now, and there could not be a more relevant book.
Judge Sotomayor
Read Charles Krauthammer's brilliant analysis of the Sotomayor situation. Here's the argument in a nutshell, as he presented it on the Fox Report:
This ought to be a seminar that [focuses] on two issues — number one, identity politics.... She and the president believe that her background is extremely important in her ruling as a judge. She says that she has the physiological, cultural, experiential tools as a Latina woman to be a superior judge to a white male, which is reflective perfectly of the Democratic Party's identity politics, in which free citizens are herded into groups, arranged into a hierarchy of wisdom, authority, and entitlement. That's a Democratic idea, and I think it's her idea and ought to be emphasized.
Secondly is the idea...of justice as empathy, as understanding a person's positions, their needs, their wants, their history, and how a ruling will affect their lives. That is entirely contrary to the western tradition of justice, which is blind as to the person's station in life.
Republicans ought to ask her, "How do you believe in that, and swear your oath?" If she is on the court, she has to swear an oath which says I will solemnly swear I will administer justice without respect to persons and to equal right to poor and rich. That's what Republicans ought to do, and not attack her in a personal way.
My two cents:
I am absolutely amazed by the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party in selling Judge Sotomayor to the public based on her ethnicity and inspiring personal story rather than her judicial competency. She has impeccable professional credentials for the position (despite her backward judicial philosophy) so why make her ethnicity the central issue of her confirmation? To do so completely undermines the concept of a goverment of laws, rather than of men.
No one in the history of the Supreme Court has a more inspiring personal story than Clarence Thomas - a black man born into abject poverty in the south, abandoned by his father and raised by grandparents. And yet, despite his inspiring story and astounding academic and professional success, he is almost universally reviled by the left. Why? The answer is obvious.
This ought to be a seminar that [focuses] on two issues — number one, identity politics.... She and the president believe that her background is extremely important in her ruling as a judge. She says that she has the physiological, cultural, experiential tools as a Latina woman to be a superior judge to a white male, which is reflective perfectly of the Democratic Party's identity politics, in which free citizens are herded into groups, arranged into a hierarchy of wisdom, authority, and entitlement. That's a Democratic idea, and I think it's her idea and ought to be emphasized.
Secondly is the idea...of justice as empathy, as understanding a person's positions, their needs, their wants, their history, and how a ruling will affect their lives. That is entirely contrary to the western tradition of justice, which is blind as to the person's station in life.
Republicans ought to ask her, "How do you believe in that, and swear your oath?" If she is on the court, she has to swear an oath which says I will solemnly swear I will administer justice without respect to persons and to equal right to poor and rich. That's what Republicans ought to do, and not attack her in a personal way.
My two cents:
I am absolutely amazed by the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party in selling Judge Sotomayor to the public based on her ethnicity and inspiring personal story rather than her judicial competency. She has impeccable professional credentials for the position (despite her backward judicial philosophy) so why make her ethnicity the central issue of her confirmation? To do so completely undermines the concept of a goverment of laws, rather than of men.
No one in the history of the Supreme Court has a more inspiring personal story than Clarence Thomas - a black man born into abject poverty in the south, abandoned by his father and raised by grandparents. And yet, despite his inspiring story and astounding academic and professional success, he is almost universally reviled by the left. Why? The answer is obvious.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Interesting Articles
Pat Buchanan article on Cheney's resurgence as a force in the national security debate.
"The Republican Party needs to get off the psychiatrist's couch, and stand up and fight for what it believes. You don't need a moderate with a pretty face to deliver a moderate message. The former vice president with the crocodile grin has just shown the way."
"The Republican Party needs to get off the psychiatrist's couch, and stand up and fight for what it believes. You don't need a moderate with a pretty face to deliver a moderate message. The former vice president with the crocodile grin has just shown the way."
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Political Trivia
Who is older?
Nancy Pelosi or Dick Cheney?
Answer:
Pelosi
Pelosi - Age 69; Born March 26, 1940
Cheney - Age 68; Born January 30, 1941
Nancy Pelosi or Dick Cheney?
Answer:
Pelosi
Pelosi - Age 69; Born March 26, 1940
Cheney - Age 68; Born January 30, 1941
Dick Cheney in Hindsight
If you missed it, here's Dick Cheney's speech on the "torture" debate and the current administration's approach to national security issues. It's long, but I highly encourage you to read the entire thing. It is the antidote to the uninformed commentator's simplistic and self-righteous criticism of Bush administration policies. If you can read this without feeling even a twinge of gratefulness for this man's service, you are drinking the kool-aid.
The caricature of Dick Cheney invented by popular culture and the compliant MSM will go down in history as one of the most propagandistic distortions of a public servant in history. A truly great man.
And here's Bill Kristol's comparison of Obama's and Cheney's speeches on this subject. Ditto.
The caricature of Dick Cheney invented by popular culture and the compliant MSM will go down in history as one of the most propagandistic distortions of a public servant in history. A truly great man.
And here's Bill Kristol's comparison of Obama's and Cheney's speeches on this subject. Ditto.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Sowell on Obama's Supreme Court Pick
This is a great series of articles on the upcoming Supreme Court vacancy. Thomas Sowell addresses Obama's promise to appoint judges with "empathy" and explains how this approach is entirely antagonistic to the rule of law.
"Empathy" Versus Law: Part I
"Empathy" Versus Law: Part II
"Empathy" Versus Law: Part III
"Empathy" Versus Law: Part IV
"Empathy" Versus Law: Part I
"Empathy" Versus Law: Part II
"Empathy" Versus Law: Part III
"Empathy" Versus Law: Part IV
Politics as Popularity Contest
This is a great article from Jonah Goldberg on the future of the Republican party. I completely agree with him. Here's a little excerpt:
"I would love it if the GOP dedicated itself to cutting government by two-thirds, leaving only a minimal social safety net, a big honking military and a few other bells and whistles for promoting the general welfare. My ideal ticket in 2008 would have been Cheney-Gramm. That's right, Dick Cheney and Phil Gramm: two old white guys who would crush our enemies and liberate our economy while shouting, "You kids get off my lawn!" at the filthy hippies who would inevitably accumulate outside the White House like so much bathroom fungus.
"But you know what? It's not about what I want. Gone are the days when a great but uncharismatic president like Calvin Coolidge could get elected because he promised to do as little as possible. My ideal platform may be right. (If I didn't think it was, it wouldn't be my ideal platform, now would it?) But it is surely not popular.
"And that, I fear, may be the key word: "popular." In my darker moods, I suspect that American politics, at least at the presidential level, is ultimately just a popularity contest. In the television age, the more personally charming guy wins -- or at minimum has a monumental advantage."
Since the election of President Obama I've had a creeping sense of unease with the direction of american politics, but I couldn't put my finger on exactly why. The article above has helped me realize why I'm so annoyed: Because now, more than ever in my memory, a leader's persona seems more important to voters than his personal and political philosophies. Don't get me wrong - I'm not uncomfortable with the fact that personal popularity plays a major role in choosing our leaders. A representative government couldn't function any other way. I just wish it wasn't the only consideration for so many.
"I would love it if the GOP dedicated itself to cutting government by two-thirds, leaving only a minimal social safety net, a big honking military and a few other bells and whistles for promoting the general welfare. My ideal ticket in 2008 would have been Cheney-Gramm. That's right, Dick Cheney and Phil Gramm: two old white guys who would crush our enemies and liberate our economy while shouting, "You kids get off my lawn!" at the filthy hippies who would inevitably accumulate outside the White House like so much bathroom fungus.
"But you know what? It's not about what I want. Gone are the days when a great but uncharismatic president like Calvin Coolidge could get elected because he promised to do as little as possible. My ideal platform may be right. (If I didn't think it was, it wouldn't be my ideal platform, now would it?) But it is surely not popular.
"And that, I fear, may be the key word: "popular." In my darker moods, I suspect that American politics, at least at the presidential level, is ultimately just a popularity contest. In the television age, the more personally charming guy wins -- or at minimum has a monumental advantage."
Since the election of President Obama I've had a creeping sense of unease with the direction of american politics, but I couldn't put my finger on exactly why. The article above has helped me realize why I'm so annoyed: Because now, more than ever in my memory, a leader's persona seems more important to voters than his personal and political philosophies. Don't get me wrong - I'm not uncomfortable with the fact that personal popularity plays a major role in choosing our leaders. A representative government couldn't function any other way. I just wish it wasn't the only consideration for so many.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
