A show of hands -- how many of you have seen an American burn a flag in person -- ever? How many of you, without doing a google search, cabn name a case in which a flag has been burned? I thought so. Some people want to claim to know the will of the 9/11 victims, use that for political gain, and tinker with our most sacred document. Good for Steyn.
Um, the liberal Supreme Court? You are kidding, right? The five justices who made up the majority in Bush v. Gore are pretty much the backbone of this court, and all are to one degree or another cionservative. By any measure, this court is simply not liberal. I do not know how one could honestly assert otherwise. Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, Kennedy and O'Connor make up that conservative majority. (Of course two of the others were appointed by Republicans as well, which also undercuts the liberal argument, but there is no doubt that Stevens is a liberal and of course Souter, one of the most impressive and respected justices, certainly has leaned a lot farther left than anyone would have thought when he was a Supreme Court justice for New Hampshire).
In any case, I have no idea what the case you cite has to do with my comment. I agree with you generally about the politics of it. I disagree generally with your 5th amendment argument -- it is pretty clear that the State can appropriate property for the public good. The question in this case is whether or not the common good is being served in this case. The Supreme Court thinks the principle -- that government has certain claims on property if there is a compelling state interest -- is vitally important. The court is not "tinkering with" the Constitution in any way , shape, or form be relying on precedent, which this case generally did not break. There is no fundamental sea change, no attempt to edit or change or amend the Constitution. Your analogy is thus not a good parallel with the flag burning amendment.
I'd be more inclined to argue with someone who is so assertive if he had the nutsack to use his own name, however. dc
Hamilton and others used anonymity for rather particular reasons more than 200 years ago. You are comparing yourself to Alexander Hamilton?
As for the Rebunk situation, I have explained this several times, but I'll do it again if reading comprehension is an issue -- I have consistently opposed anonymous commenting on HNN. In fact, I was one of the strongest critics of anonymity back when they were going to change the policy and I pushed that policy as strongly as possible. I had no idea that Marc had been anonymous because I did not know him. I had never net him. I emailed him after receiving the information through the editor of HNN and wanted to contact him because he had always impressed me. When I discovered that he had been anonymous, we (the HNN editor, Marc, and I) figured out how to rectify the situation. But the key, and obviously you are a bit slow on the uptake, is that he has never blogged on rebunk anonymously. Not once. Which is why I encourage you and all others who are not willing to stand behind their strongly made views to use your own names. If you did so, I would not hold past anonymity against you, just as I do not hold Marc's against him. As for whether I would over;look something because the person suits my ideology, I'll assume that is a cheap shot accusation the like sof which one can only make because I have made my identity known. That is my problem with anonymity -- you can slither in the shadows and levy accusations without having to stand behind them. Very pussy.
As for your tautology -- you hold view X to be liberal, therefore only a liberal judge would support the particular issue in question. That is nonsense. Justice Kennedy is not a liberal. His history is rather clear on this front. This is simply a fact -- much of his early career was as a lobbyist for conservatives, with Ed Meese as one of his main political friends and supporters, which is how he became close to Reagan. In my mind Kennedy is still a fair and capable judge. But he is a conservative, no matter what you have decided about this case.
I am not certain that you get to establish the litmus test for liberalism. I believe that several of the Rebunkers, all of whom are conservative, support abortion rights, for example. erhaps in your miond that makes them liberal. You do not get to determine the ideologies of others.
Eminent domain has been a long recognized practice that in many cases has also been supported by conservatives -- oftentimes in the face of liberal opposition, such as appropriating the homes of the poor for highways. Let us also keep in mind that to overturn the legislature's decision in this case also would have been a rather unconservatyive thing to do -- conservatives tend to support local rule and especially decsiions by state legislatures. In other words -- no matter which way you slice it, the conservative/liberal break does not hold in this case. There is lots of use of eminent domain in Texas, for example, and it does not come from liberals. There have been cases in recent years of conservative localities invoking eminent domain in conservative states -- the Mississippi Authority trying to take three private homes for the sake of building a Nissan plant. This is simply not a liberal-v-conservative break on this issue histroically or as it manifests itself now, even if in this case the liberal judges broke from the most conservative ones. (Need more: Which side did the Bush justice department support on this one? Trick question -- neither. But if it was so obvious, one would think they would have filed an amicus brief rather quickly; except conservative governments are all about eminent domain too). So argue the merits all you want. But do not turn this into your line in the sand for the pernicious nature of American liberalism.
The Rush Limbaugh example is an absurdity that has nothing to do with the particular argument. I would oppose any politicized case of use of eminent domain, just like i think it is stupid for those who are prattling on about calaiming eminent domain of Souter's home. This is simply not a good case of a left-right divide on the court. We can discuss the merits of the decision. We can discuss whether the Constitution has granted the courts certain rights. But to say that this particular decision, of all of the dozens that are decided every year, shows that the court as it currently exists is liberal is simply wrong and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Supreme Court decisions, the ways in which they go about making those decisions, and the recent history of this court. Many judges believe in precedent and stare decisis above all, including ideology. To have overturned the New London case would in fact been to have gone against precedenmt. The court did not establish any new constitutional or legal principles. I am pretty dubious about eminent domain myself, but whatever I feel about it does not necessarily mean that the Supreme Court takes on a particulat ideological motivation in any case whent hey disagree with me. The majority of Supreme Court cases in any given term are decided by a unanimous or 7-1 majority. Any of those decisions can be seen to have ideological implications. That does not mean that ideology was the judge's motivating factor.
Atlas -- It is simply clear that you do not understand Constitutional Law. And that is fine -- most people do not. It is also clear that you might be the only person who has ever put these words together "The brilliant Justice Thomas". Please. Suffice it to say that that confluence of words has never happened and probably won't withion our lifetime -- I have met several of the justices, and many are brilliant. You've chosen to ride the wrong horse. (And in my first book --forthcoming, we hope -- I quote Justice Thomas, so I am not knee-jerk derisive of him). Once again, you have chosen to define liberalism and conservatism in the exact wrong way -- to say that decision X does not fit with conservative precepts as you define them. But you do not define conservative precepts. Fact is, eminent domain is more of a pro-developer, and thus pro-conservative, domain than it is a pro liberal one. That is why you cannot explain the dozens of eminent domain decisions from conservative states. There may be lots of ways to critique this court; this simply is not one, as eminent domain is an established precept, and one that fits with conservative doctribne -- local control matters. That is to say that the US government did not take over this land; the state of Connecticut did not take over this land; the locality did. Am I uncomfortable with the decisiion? Frankly, yes I am. But that is not the case I have been making here. the case I have been making is that there is nothing inherently conservative about this decision. And I stand by that. We can judge its rightness or its wrongness. But to try to make this a politicized case is simply wrong. And again, to make any one case represent the political leanings of this court is both wrong and foolish. By any reasonable measure, this court is conservative. maybe it might not be conservatibve enough for you, and we can discuss that. But serious followers of the court do not deny its inherent conservatism. Put it this way -- the swing judge on this court, the one who all accounts has decided held its fundamental power, was former majority leader of the Arizona Senate. Let's not let our own politics lie about the facts. maybe the court was wrong. But the burden is on those who oppose it to say why, and not to proclaim that their explaination can be justified by the bluster ofideology. That does not work. I hate to say it, but again, having met many of these people, having worked in their words, I probably have more respect for the intellect of the Supreme Court than for any single body in the United States. That does not make them always right. I do think it sets them above the vitrol of people whose name I do not know. On Con Law I do not set myself up as an expert. But having had a fellowship with the Supreme Court Historical Socierty, having written a manuscript that is soon to be a book in which two chapters were on Con Law, and having been involved with ;legal history on a number of different fronts, I will say that I probably am a better source than all of the Big Tenters combined. I maintain that your narrow focus on one case, whatever we think ofits outcome, is simply, well, a narrow focus on one case. The utterly retarded response, which has been to try to take Souter's property in response, shows the vacuousness of the opposition. If you oppose all eminent domain, which I might even support, you nonetheless have to raise a solid Constitutional argument against it. The arguments you levy from O'Connor and Thomas are emotional, not Constitutional. Emotionally they may well be right. From a Constitutional vantage point? They have not made the case.
5 comments:
A show of hands -- how many of you have seen an American burn a flag in person -- ever? How many of you, without doing a google search, cabn name a case in which a flag has been burned? I thought so. Some people want to claim to know the will of the 9/11 victims, use that for political gain, and tinker with our most sacred document. Good for Steyn.
Um, the liberal Supreme Court? You are kidding, right? The five justices who made up the majority in Bush v. Gore are pretty much the backbone of this court, and all are to one degree or another cionservative. By any measure, this court is simply not liberal. I do not know how one could honestly assert otherwise. Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, Kennedy and O'Connor make up that conservative majority. (Of course two of the others were appointed by Republicans as well, which also undercuts the liberal argument, but there is no doubt that Stevens is a liberal and of course Souter, one of the most impressive and respected justices, certainly has leaned a lot farther left than anyone would have thought when he was a Supreme Court justice for New Hampshire).
In any case, I have no idea what the case you cite has to do with my comment. I agree with you generally about the politics of it. I disagree generally with your 5th amendment argument -- it is pretty clear that the State can appropriate property for the public good. The question in this case is whether or not the common good is being served in this case. The Supreme Court thinks the principle -- that government has certain claims on property if there is a compelling state interest -- is vitally important. The court is not "tinkering with" the Constitution in any way , shape, or form be relying on precedent, which this case generally did not break. There is no fundamental sea change, no attempt to edit or change or amend the Constitution. Your analogy is thus not a good parallel with the flag burning amendment.
I'd be more inclined to argue with someone who is so assertive if he had the nutsack to use his own name, however.
dc
Derek--
Is there something Freudian in your continual references to testicles? Very scholarly.
Hamilton and others used anonymity for rather particular reasons more than 200 years ago. You are comparing yourself to Alexander Hamilton?
As for the Rebunk situation, I have explained this several times, but I'll do it again if reading comprehension is an issue -- I have consistently opposed anonymous commenting on HNN. In fact, I was one of the strongest critics of anonymity back when they were going to change the policy and I pushed that policy as strongly as possible. I had no idea that Marc had been anonymous because I did not know him. I had never net him. I emailed him after receiving the information through the editor of HNN and wanted to contact him because he had always impressed me. When I discovered that he had been anonymous, we (the HNN editor, Marc, and I) figured out how to rectify the situation. But the key, and obviously you are a bit slow on the uptake, is that he has never blogged on rebunk anonymously. Not once. Which is why I encourage you and all others who are not willing to stand behind their strongly made views to use your own names. If you did so, I would not hold past anonymity against you, just as I do not hold Marc's against him. As for whether I would over;look something because the person suits my ideology, I'll assume that is a cheap shot accusation the like sof which one can only make because I have made my identity known. That is my problem with anonymity -- you can slither in the shadows and levy accusations without having to stand behind them. Very pussy.
As for your tautology -- you hold view X to be liberal, therefore only a liberal judge would support the particular issue in question. That is nonsense. Justice Kennedy is not a liberal. His history is rather clear on this front. This is simply a fact -- much of his early career was as a lobbyist for conservatives, with Ed Meese as one of his main political friends and supporters, which is how he became close to Reagan. In my mind Kennedy is still a fair and capable judge. But he is a conservative, no matter what you have decided about this case.
I am not certain that you get to establish the litmus test for liberalism. I believe that several of the Rebunkers, all of whom are conservative, support abortion rights, for example. erhaps in your miond that makes them liberal. You do not get to determine the ideologies of others.
Eminent domain has been a long recognized practice that in many cases has also been supported by conservatives -- oftentimes in the face of liberal opposition, such as appropriating the homes of the poor for highways. Let us also keep in mind that to overturn the legislature's decision in this case also would have been a rather unconservatyive thing to do -- conservatives tend to support local rule and especially decsiions by state legislatures. In other words -- no matter which way you slice it, the conservative/liberal break does not hold in this case. There is lots of use of eminent domain in Texas, for example, and it does not come from liberals. There have been cases in recent years of conservative localities invoking eminent domain in conservative states -- the Mississippi Authority trying to take three private homes for the sake of building a Nissan plant. This is simply not a liberal-v-conservative break on this issue histroically or as it manifests itself now, even if in this case the liberal judges broke from the most conservative ones. (Need more: Which side did the Bush justice department support on this one? Trick question -- neither. But if it was so obvious, one would think they would have filed an amicus brief rather quickly; except conservative governments are all about eminent domain too). So argue the merits all you want. But do not turn this into your line in the sand for the pernicious nature of American liberalism.
The Rush Limbaugh example is an absurdity that has nothing to do with the particular argument. I would oppose any politicized case of use of eminent domain, just like i think it is stupid for those who are prattling on about calaiming eminent domain of Souter's home. This is simply not a good case of a left-right divide on the court. We can discuss the merits of the decision. We can discuss whether the Constitution has granted the courts certain rights. But to say that this particular decision, of all of the dozens that are decided every year, shows that the court as it currently exists is liberal is simply wrong and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Supreme Court decisions, the ways in which they go about making those decisions, and the recent history of this court. Many judges believe in precedent and stare decisis above all, including ideology. To have overturned the New London case would in fact been to have gone against precedenmt. The court did not establish any new constitutional or legal principles. I am pretty dubious about eminent domain myself, but whatever I feel about it does not necessarily mean that the Supreme Court takes on a particulat ideological motivation in any case whent hey disagree with me. The majority of Supreme Court cases in any given term are decided by a unanimous or 7-1 majority. Any of those decisions can be seen to have ideological implications. That does not mean that ideology was the judge's motivating factor.
dc
Atlas --
It is simply clear that you do not understand Constitutional Law. And that is fine -- most people do not.
It is also clear that you might be the only person who has ever put these words together "The brilliant Justice Thomas". Please. Suffice it to say that that confluence of words has never happened and probably won't withion our lifetime -- I have met several of the justices, and many are brilliant. You've chosen to ride the wrong horse. (And in my first book --forthcoming, we hope -- I quote Justice Thomas, so I am not knee-jerk derisive of him).
Once again, you have chosen to define liberalism and conservatism in the exact wrong way -- to say that decision X does not fit with conservative precepts as you define them. But you do not define conservative precepts. Fact is, eminent domain is more of a pro-developer, and thus pro-conservative, domain than it is a pro liberal one. That is why you cannot explain the dozens of eminent domain decisions from conservative states. There may be lots of ways to critique this court; this simply is not one, as eminent domain is an established precept, and one that fits with conservative doctribne -- local control matters. That is to say that the US government did not take over this land; the state of Connecticut did not take over this land; the locality did.
Am I uncomfortable with the decisiion? Frankly, yes I am. But that is not the case I have been making here. the case I have been making is that there is nothing inherently conservative about this decision. And I stand by that. We can judge its rightness or its wrongness. But to try to make this a politicized case is simply wrong. And again, to make any one case represent the political leanings of this court is both wrong and foolish. By any reasonable measure, this court is conservative. maybe it might not be conservatibve enough for you, and we can discuss that. But serious followers of the court do not deny its inherent conservatism. Put it this way -- the swing judge on this court, the one who all accounts has decided held its fundamental power, was former majority leader of the Arizona Senate. Let's not let our own politics lie about the facts. maybe the court was wrong. But the burden is on those who oppose it to say why, and not to proclaim that their explaination can be justified by the bluster ofideology. That does not work. I hate to say it, but again, having met many of these people, having worked in their words, I probably have more respect for the intellect of the Supreme Court than for any single body in the United States. That does not make them always right. I do think it sets them above the vitrol of people whose name I do not know. On Con Law I do not set myself up as an expert. But having had a fellowship with the Supreme Court Historical Socierty, having written a manuscript that is soon to be a book in which two chapters were on Con Law, and having been involved with ;legal history on a number of different fronts, I will say that I probably am a better source than all of the Big Tenters combined.
I maintain that your narrow focus on one case, whatever we think ofits outcome, is simply, well, a narrow focus on one case. The utterly retarded response, which has been to try to take Souter's property in response, shows the vacuousness of the opposition. If you oppose all eminent domain, which I might even support, you nonetheless have to raise a solid Constitutional argument against it. The arguments you levy from O'Connor and Thomas are emotional, not Constitutional. Emotionally they may well be right. From a Constitutional vantage point? They have not made the case.
dc
Post a Comment