"Power never concedes anything without a demand; it never has and it never will."
Sam Adams
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
so i'm gonna throw in some comments in response to the last comment you made on the 17th amendment post.
So one think i thin is great about Sotomayor is that its seems that she is a pragmatic justice rather than an ideological one. I think that is a great benefit to the courts as well as to the country when that is how our Supreme Court justices make their decisions. The negative to that is the possibility that it can lead to, one of the charges against her, making decisions based on personal politics. That is definitely a misuse of the position.
Another bonus i think to the pragmatic jurisprudence that Sotomayer would bring is that it lends itself to liberal decisions, which i think are vitally important to the health of the nation. I will take a sec here to define my terms. I think a healthy dose of judicial restraint is good, especially when countered with progressive thinking. The greatest responsibility of the Supreme court is to keep our laws up to date with the thinking of the times while still protecting the rights and liberties of the individual. Pragmatic jurisprudence opens the window to a fresh view of the constitution and its interactions with current America.
That brings me around to the 17th amendment comment. I think we walk a fine line when we invoke the founding fathers in political discussions. I think we have to keep in mind their intentions and the concepts rather than their actual, literal actions. They did not and could not have anticipated many aspects of current America. Not because they would never have wanted the actions to have taken place the led us here but because they causes themselves were unfathomable. Computers, the internet, space flight, nuclear weapons, enormous population growth, drastic globalization, and probably not even the extent of the two world wars let alone the wars themselves. Then there's social issues like gay marriage, abortion, environmental protection, gun control, etc. In some of these things there are indications (probably even explicitly in a few cases, i just don't know them) of how the founding fathers thought but they could not have known what was to come. That being said, too conservative of a Supreme court is going to stagnate the country and leave us in the 18th century whereas progressive justices will help keep the concepts of the founders relevant throughout the centuries.
Here i will make a comparison to Christianity. One of the reason where mainstream Christianity struggles in modern life is that is has inflexibly attached itself to precepts from the first half of the first millennium. It has stagnated and left itself irrelevant to a good portion of issues in the modern world. There are fringe sects the are progressive but they are fringe. American government would be the same if not for the possibility of reassessing the goals of the founders in light of modern culture. As a republic, that is the way it should be.
I'm sorry if this was too far off topic as well as for being longwinded. I'll read the VAT one a little later.
I'm not thrilled with Sotomayer. Yes, the court needs to be more diverse and I am very happy there may actually be (gasp) 2 whole women on the Supreme Court. However, the more I read about her the more it becomes clear that very little is known about her legal views on important issues she will rule on, such as abortion. Robert Gibbs (W.H. Press Secretary) said Obama did not even discuss abortion with Sotomayer. Wah??? I find that Obama and his people are so obsessed with a person's narrative and personal story, and that is the message I see them pushing about Sotomayer. I'm glad she has had an interesting life, it sounds inspiring, but I only care about what her legal views are.
There were other more qualified judges that are women that could have been nominated (2 of the most qualified that were supposedly being considered are gay, so of course Obama decided to go with someone else.)
I was wondering what you think about some of the issues surrounding Sotomayer: 1.) the "empathy" problem, which I think is political hot air and just silly 2.) 'identity politics' and people complaining that Obama chose her because she's a woman and hispanic. in a country that is as diverse as America, do we want only old white men on the supreme court? 3.) i thought this comment was interesting and was wondering what your opinion is: "(from abcnews.com) Charmaine Yoest, president of pro-life organization Americans United for Life, believes the abortion argument should not be in the hands of Supreme Court justices. "Abortion forces want to put it [abortion issue] beyond reach of [the] American people... [But the] legislators are accountable to people," Yoest said. "She has defined a judge as a super legislator. ... Once she's on court, she's beyond the reach of the American people.""
two great post. thank you nathan and sara. by the way, this sara this is nathan, nathan this is sara.
I think what you are looking for, nathan, is the man named, Edmond Burke. He wrote the book, "Reflections on the Revolution in Frnace" in 1790 or so. He is considered the father of conservatism. He argued that the french had gone out of control and were to quick to drop the traditions of the past in favor of something new, somethng that hadn't been tested. He proposed that a good society would hold on to traditions, while slowly through the institutions set up change to the times the People are living in. The rate of change he really didn't get into. I see merit in the arguement. The french revolution fell apart, while the repbulic of britian grew stronger. It is the rate of change, that i am most concerned about. I agree there need sot be change due to things the People the past could not foresee. But if we move too quickly and drop the traditions too fast we lose the foundation of the society, causing the society to be unstable. With sotomayor, i can't tell what she thinks about the rate of change, and that worries me. But that might be for every judge. For the church, i see what you are saying and it makes sense. Personally i think the church should focus on saving souls rather than politics. the day's politics are meaningless when you are working on the scale of eternal life. I think the church should focus all its effort on helping the poor and education. Those are good things.
I read about that concern of sotomayor's stance on abortion, and i figured you would be nervous about that, sara. I am right there with you, on how obama's adminstration seems to focus more on her story than her judgements. A main judgement that nathan and i talked about was the firemen case in Conn. Interestingly she was one of the judges on that case. But that really is the only case they have brought up about her. But i feel hopeless to even debate if she should be there or not. She is going to be put on the court, i'm about 99% sure of that. about empathy, I think the court should have no feelings, but only the law. So if it is true that she judges sometimes with her heart, that's not a good thing, because the heart can change fast sometimes. I don't think the court should just be all old white men, but to place a judge on the court for the sole reason to make it diverse seems like a poor decision on the president's part. I like the last quote, I think author is right on when they right, "once she's on court, she's beyond the reach of the american people". But isn't that how the system is set up? we made an effort to distant our judges so they are not influnced by fads and mob rule, but only focus on the law. It still is scary to think that they can never be fired, but i like how the system is set up in that regard.
I would agree with you both that if she was being placed on the bench solely based on her race, that would be a travesty as well as prejudiced. But luckily she is a terribly qualified justice. I don't think anyone would argue her judicial experience.
Along with the two of you, I do not want to see a justice that is going to make decisions based on how she feels. That would make for a very capricious and whimsical court. What i think the Obama administration is attempting to achieve with an "empathy" justice is not necessarily that type of justice. Instead they are looking more for someone with a pragmatic jurisprudence, sort of like Breyer i think. I read his book, "Active Liberty," and i really appreciated his view of the role of a Supreme Court Justice. With Sotomayer's track record, i think she fits into the category with him. They do not judge on hard ideological lines so you can't necessarily look back on their record and see, ok, she votes against abortion all the time, she is pro-life. She reviews the case that is in front of her and rather than take that ideological stance, she reviews the case info. This is all assumption since i don't actually know her approach to judging but of what i've read it seems similar to Breyer's. But it is hard to tell whether someone is being pragmatic or choosing based on personal politics. That is the risk with a nominee like this. I think that a pragmatic jurisprudence is the most effective but you can't really tell right off the bat if thats what she's doing. Hopefully they will uncover her personality and philosophy through the vetting.
I don't think I made myself clear on the empathy issue. I think it's silly for politicians and pundits to get so worked up over it. Every time someone is nominated one side does alot of posturing about empathy and it's such a hot air. We don't nominate robots or vulcans to the supreme court--these are human beings. I'm just going to quote BTD from talkleft:
"This is the absurdity of the "anti-empathy" view. It is a wish to make humans something other than what they are. Me, I am a legal realist. I think it is much better to deal with the reality and make judgments accordingly. It is why I believe the Senate should demand concrete answers from nominees on critical legal questions. Instead, the conservative approach generally... is to deny that it exists among "conservative" jurists."
Do any of you remember Justice Sam Alito said this:
"When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account."
so i'm gonna throw in some comments in response to the last comment you made on the 17th amendment post.
ReplyDeleteSo one think i thin is great about Sotomayor is that its seems that she is a pragmatic justice rather than an ideological one. I think that is a great benefit to the courts as well as to the country when that is how our Supreme Court justices make their decisions. The negative to that is the possibility that it can lead to, one of the charges against her, making decisions based on personal politics. That is definitely a misuse of the position.
Another bonus i think to the pragmatic jurisprudence that Sotomayer would bring is that it lends itself to liberal decisions, which i think are vitally important to the health of the nation. I will take a sec here to define my terms. I think a healthy dose of judicial restraint is good, especially when countered with progressive thinking. The greatest responsibility of the Supreme court is to keep our laws up to date with the thinking of the times while still protecting the rights and liberties of the individual. Pragmatic jurisprudence opens the window to a fresh view of the constitution and its interactions with current America.
That brings me around to the 17th amendment comment. I think we walk a fine line when we invoke the founding fathers in political discussions. I think we have to keep in mind their intentions and the concepts rather than their actual, literal actions. They did not and could not have anticipated many aspects of current America. Not because they would never have wanted the actions to have taken place the led us here but because they causes themselves were unfathomable. Computers, the internet, space flight, nuclear weapons, enormous population growth, drastic globalization, and probably not even the extent of the two world wars let alone the wars themselves. Then there's social issues like gay marriage, abortion, environmental protection, gun control, etc. In some of these things there are indications (probably even explicitly in a few cases, i just don't know them) of how the founding fathers thought but they could not have known what was to come. That being said, too conservative of a Supreme court is going to stagnate the country and leave us in the 18th century whereas progressive justices will help keep the concepts of the founders relevant throughout the centuries.
Here i will make a comparison to Christianity. One of the reason where mainstream Christianity struggles in modern life is that is has inflexibly attached itself to precepts from the first half of the first millennium. It has stagnated and left itself irrelevant to a good portion of issues in the modern world. There are fringe sects the are progressive but they are fringe. American government would be the same if not for the possibility of reassessing the goals of the founders in light of modern culture. As a republic, that is the way it should be.
I'm sorry if this was too far off topic as well as for being longwinded. I'll read the VAT one a little later.
I'm not thrilled with Sotomayer. Yes, the court needs to be more diverse and I am very happy there may actually be (gasp) 2 whole women on the Supreme Court. However, the more I read about her the more it becomes clear that very little is known about her legal views on important issues she will rule on, such as abortion. Robert Gibbs (W.H. Press Secretary) said Obama did not even discuss abortion with Sotomayer. Wah??? I find that Obama and his people are so obsessed with a person's narrative and personal story, and that is the message I see them pushing about Sotomayer. I'm glad she has had an interesting life, it sounds inspiring, but I only care about what her legal views are.
ReplyDeleteThere were other more qualified judges that are women that could have been nominated (2 of the most qualified that were supposedly being considered are gay, so of course Obama decided to go with someone else.)
I was wondering what you think about some of the issues surrounding Sotomayer:
1.) the "empathy" problem, which I think is political hot air and just silly
2.) 'identity politics' and people complaining that Obama chose her because she's a woman and hispanic. in a country that is as diverse as America, do we want only old white men on the supreme court?
3.) i thought this comment was interesting and was wondering what your opinion is:
"(from abcnews.com) Charmaine Yoest, president of pro-life organization Americans United for Life, believes the abortion argument should not be in the hands of Supreme Court justices. "Abortion forces want to put it [abortion issue] beyond reach of [the] American people... [But the] legislators are accountable to people," Yoest said. "She has defined a judge as a super legislator. ... Once she's on court, she's beyond the reach of the American people.""
thoughts?
two great post. thank you nathan and sara. by the way, this sara this is nathan, nathan this is sara.
ReplyDeleteI think what you are looking for, nathan, is the man named, Edmond Burke. He wrote the book, "Reflections on the Revolution in Frnace" in 1790 or so. He is considered the father of conservatism. He argued that the french had gone out of control and were to quick to drop the traditions of the past in favor of something new, somethng that hadn't been tested. He proposed that a good society would hold on to traditions, while slowly through the institutions set up change to the times the People are living in. The rate of change he really didn't get into. I see merit in the arguement. The french revolution fell apart, while the repbulic of britian grew stronger. It is the rate of change, that i am most concerned about. I agree there need sot be change due to things the People the past could not foresee. But if we move too quickly and drop the traditions too fast we lose the foundation of the society, causing the society to be unstable. With sotomayor, i can't tell what she thinks about the rate of change, and that worries me. But that might be for every judge.
For the church, i see what you are saying and it makes sense. Personally i think the church should focus on saving souls rather than politics. the day's politics are meaningless when you are working on the scale of eternal life. I think the church should focus all its effort on helping the poor and education. Those are good things.
I read about that concern of sotomayor's stance on abortion, and i figured you would be nervous about that, sara. I am right there with you, on how obama's adminstration seems to focus more on her story than her judgements. A main judgement that nathan and i talked about was the firemen case in Conn. Interestingly she was one of the judges on that case. But that really is the only case they have brought up about her. But i feel hopeless to even debate if she should be there or not. She is going to be put on the court, i'm about 99% sure of that.
about empathy, I think the court should have no feelings, but only the law. So if it is true that she judges sometimes with her heart, that's not a good thing, because the heart can change fast sometimes.
I don't think the court should just be all old white men, but to place a judge on the court for the sole reason to make it diverse seems like a poor decision on the president's part.
I like the last quote, I think author is right on when they right, "once she's on court, she's beyond the reach of the american people". But isn't that how the system is set up? we made an effort to distant our judges so they are not influnced by fads and mob rule, but only focus on the law. It still is scary to think that they can never be fired, but i like how the system is set up in that regard.
great posts. thanks.
Good to meet you sara! Thanks for joining us.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with you both that if she was being placed on the bench solely based on her race, that would be a travesty as well as prejudiced. But luckily she is a terribly qualified justice. I don't think anyone would argue her judicial experience.
Along with the two of you, I do not want to see a justice that is going to make decisions based on how she feels. That would make for a very capricious and whimsical court. What i think the Obama administration is attempting to achieve with an "empathy" justice is not necessarily that type of justice. Instead they are looking more for someone with a pragmatic jurisprudence, sort of like Breyer i think. I read his book, "Active Liberty," and i really appreciated his view of the role of a Supreme Court Justice. With Sotomayer's track record, i think she fits into the category with him. They do not judge on hard ideological lines so you can't necessarily look back on their record and see, ok, she votes against abortion all the time, she is pro-life. She reviews the case that is in front of her and rather than take that ideological stance, she reviews the case info. This is all assumption since i don't actually know her approach to judging but of what i've read it seems similar to Breyer's. But it is hard to tell whether someone is being pragmatic or choosing based on personal politics. That is the risk with a nominee like this. I think that a pragmatic jurisprudence is the most effective but you can't really tell right off the bat if thats what she's doing. Hopefully they will uncover her personality and philosophy through the vetting.
Good to meet you too, Nathan!
ReplyDeleteI don't think I made myself clear on the empathy issue. I think it's silly for politicians and pundits to get so worked up over it. Every time someone is nominated one side does alot of posturing about empathy and it's such a hot air. We don't nominate robots or vulcans to the supreme court--these are human beings. I'm just going to quote BTD from talkleft:
"This is the absurdity of the "anti-empathy" view. It is a wish to make humans something other than what they are. Me, I am a legal realist. I think it is much better to deal with the reality and make judgments accordingly. It is why I believe the Senate should demand concrete answers from nominees on critical legal questions. Instead, the conservative approach generally... is to deny that it exists among "conservative" jurists."
Do any of you remember Justice Sam Alito said this:
"When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account."
Sounds like empathy to me.
Yeah, i misunderstood you, sorry. We are definable on the same page!
ReplyDelete