The Dawn Treader

Someone please identify the individual described below?

"In his final years on the Court, he became indifferent to his judicial duties -- he reportedly left much of the writing of opinions to his clerks and sometimes didn't bother to read the briefs submitted by counsel.  Instead, he apparently spent many hours watching television in his chambers, especially soap operas.  People magazine called him a devotee of Days Of Our Lives ... he once told a fellow justice that you could learn a lot about life from soap operas.  Despite the fact that he wasn't quite giving it his all, he didn't want to leave, since he would probably be replaced by someone of the opposite political persuasion.  With cantankerous tongue in cheek, he used to tell his clerks, 'If I die, prop me up and keep on voting'."

Can you I hear a loud amen to term limits?

Do I find myself in agreement with a Boston Globe columnist?   Perish the thought ... but I believe the answer is yes.

"The Court, in addition to the proper use of its judicial functions, has improperly set itself up as a third house of Congress -- a super-legislature, as one of the justices has called it -- reading into the Constitution words and implications which are not there, and which were never intended to be there.

We have therefore reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself.  We must find a way to take an appeal from the Supreme Court to the Constitution itself.  We want a Supreme Court which will do justice under the Constitution and not over it.  In our courts we want a government of laws and not of men"

If you thought this quote emerged from the Roberts hearings, you would be wrong.  Who said this?  The answer may surprise you.  It did me.

One of the first things I thought about when Roberts was announced as the nominee ... no record ... oh no, a roll of the dice ... could we be Souter'd again?

The cold chill grew as I read Coulter's column today.

...snip...

But unfortunately, other than that that, we don’t know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever.

... snip ...

Maybe Roberts will contravene the sordid history of “stealth nominees” and be the Scalia or Thomas Bush promised us when he was asking for our votes. Or maybe he won’t. The Supreme Court shouldn't be a game of Russian roulette.

Like many judicial conservatives, I was hoping for a Scalia ... most pundits are saying we got a Rehnquist ... my concern is he will turn out to be a Souter.

I ain't opening up comments on this one.

Virginia's John Warner dissed me and dissed judicial conservatism last night.  Warner and several other left of center senators inked a laughable "deal" and politely asked the obstructionists if they would only obstruct in "extraordinary circumstances."  I would say an opening on the supreme court is an extraordinary circumstance, wouldn't you?

For a background on my position on judicial filibusters: see here and here and here.  Here is someone who thinks my view is foolish.

Last night's "compromise" is a huge victory for the opponents of judicial conservatism.   Reid,  Boxer,  Schumer and the NY Times have earned the right to crow this morning.  They have given up nothing and will continue to prevent the Senate from voting on judicial conservatives.  Extraordinary, indeed.

Steven L. Taylor, Ph.D. an Associate Professor of Political Science runs an interesting poliblog.

Professor Taylor says,

"Over the last several weeks I have heard a number of individuals make the argument that the filibuster is somehow part of the checks and balances systems of the United States Constitution or that somehow debate is being squelched by the majority party."

Taylor then does a nice smack down of those specious arguments.  By reading his blog, I learned a lot about filibusters, the constitutional perspective on the judicial nomination process, and how nominess are moved from committee to the floor for votes.  I also learned some history about Senator Byrd and his enthusiasm for changing Senate rules when he was in the majority.  Tradition?  Pish posh.  Seems there is enough hypocrisy to go around this issue, eh?

I called Mr. Warner's office and expressed my opinion on the outrageous practice of filibustering judges.  Warner has yet to express support for ending the use the filibusters to prevent judges from making it to the floor of the Senate for a nomination vote.

I will continue to call his office.

Midlothian
Norfolk
Abingdon
Roanoke
Washington, D.C.

David Brooks hits it out. of. the . park.

Our country took a decisive turn in the road in 1973.  What is taking place in our senate finds its roots in that fateful decision.  Blackmun and friends snatched away an important debate that needed to happen.  The result is what we have today. 

Senator Warner has gotten squishy.  He has not publicly committed to restoring the constitutional responsibility of senators to vote on judicial nominees by a simple majority.  He seems to be waffling and may possibly support the continued abuse of filibusters to block judicial nominees.

Why would he do this?  The standard argument for supporting filibusters for blocking judicial nominees seems to be "tradition".  The Senate has traditions which must be honored.  Rules should never be changed.

Let's look at tradition.  Here are the number of judicial nominees that have been blocked by filibuster -- broken down by century.

1700's - # of judicial nominees filibustered on the floor - 0
1800's - # of judicial nominees filibustered on the floor - 0
1900's - # of judicial nominees filibustered on the floor - 1
2000's - # of judicial nominees filibustered on the floor - 10 on 20 different occasions.

Ok.  Tradition has spoken.   Now change the rules.

Stop the nonsense.  End the filibusters on judicial nominees.  Vote on judges.

I have already emailed the honorable Mr. Warner.  Today I will call his office in Roanoke.  I may even go visit his district office here in Roanoke to express my opinion.  Let me know if you want to come along.

Call ALL of his offices:

Midlothian
Norfolk
Abingdon
Roanoke
Washington, D.C.

For a good primer on how to debate this issue, check out Radio Blogger's transcript of Hugh Hewitt (for the constitutional option) debating against Nancy Zirkin (the sacrificial lamb).

Time for a shout out to go read How Privacy Went Public by James Taranto.  Taranto does a nice job of succinctly framing the problem of judicial activism.

It is short and spot on.  Is the right to privacy written into the Constitution?  Or, is this right merely a "penumbra*" and "emanation" of the fourteenth amendment?

Taranto cites some interesting ironies in his short essay.

Also check out BK's post on this article over at Cadre Comments.  BK taught constitutional law for 10 years so pay attention and learn.

*penumbra is my new word for the week.