Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Judge murder apologist senator speaks
So I was reading his reponse to the fervour caused by his misguided words, when I came upon this passage:
Federal judges are appointed subject to advice and consent provisions of the Constitution for a lifetime. They do not run for election. They do not have to raise money as do other politicians. I know those who do envy them that.
It is there. The big grey elephant of western democracy, the politicians face a system of a dual accountability. One democratic and the other plutocratic. This is not a surprise to most people but the nonchalanceness (this this a word?) of this statement and the equality implicit in the statement is refreshingly honest. The strings are visible here for a second.
But the idea is they are supposed to use that independence in order to be impartial umpires of the law -- it is called balls and strikes -- and they should use that independence that has been given to them in order to resist politics, in order to resist those who would suggest that in order to be popular you must subscribe to a particular way of thinking or a particular social or political or ideological agenda.
And attacking judges for "activism" is not an attempt to force them to subscribe to a particular way of thinking.
I guess he hasn't read the decision in New York on gay marriage. There was no activism there, just good lawyering on the part of the plainiffs. A simple analogy combined with rights given in the state constitution made the decision. The american marriage laws had seen a massive overhaul before when the antimiscegenation laws where struck down (banning interraccial marriage). The world was going to end then, judeo-christian society was going to end. Has it? Guess not.
Jax
(Link)
Federal judges are appointed subject to advice and consent provisions of the Constitution for a lifetime. They do not run for election. They do not have to raise money as do other politicians. I know those who do envy them that.
It is there. The big grey elephant of western democracy, the politicians face a system of a dual accountability. One democratic and the other plutocratic. This is not a surprise to most people but the nonchalanceness (this this a word?) of this statement and the equality implicit in the statement is refreshingly honest. The strings are visible here for a second.
But the idea is they are supposed to use that independence in order to be impartial umpires of the law -- it is called balls and strikes -- and they should use that independence that has been given to them in order to resist politics, in order to resist those who would suggest that in order to be popular you must subscribe to a particular way of thinking or a particular social or political or ideological agenda.
And attacking judges for "activism" is not an attempt to force them to subscribe to a particular way of thinking.
I guess he hasn't read the decision in New York on gay marriage. There was no activism there, just good lawyering on the part of the plainiffs. A simple analogy combined with rights given in the state constitution made the decision. The american marriage laws had seen a massive overhaul before when the antimiscegenation laws where struck down (banning interraccial marriage). The world was going to end then, judeo-christian society was going to end. Has it? Guess not.
Jax
(Link)
