So, enough about so-called "Reality." Let's talk about the administration!
My ruminations on the topic of reality are constitutively unhelpful (for anyone besides myself, I suspect) in trying to get a handle on what the hell is going on, in Bush's America. So I thought I'd see if I can't prepare for a topic ahead of time, by babbling about a couple of terms that are about to be heaved around our glorious capital. So let's think about "Judicial Activism" and "Stare Decisis."
Next week, the clueless goofball you see here on the left, fresh from appointing 17 people to important positions when THE SENATE WHERE HE HOLDS A MAJORITY WAS OUT OF TOWN--what a mandate!--is going to attempt to appoint the comely primate on the right to the supreme court, which self-proclaimed professor wonks like to call "SCOTUS", possibly to get the tingly frisson of using jargon, and possibly the satisfaction of having someone ask what, precisely, that could be. Not the subtle doctor!
My feelings about the battological malversationists in (sorry; "that constitute") the administration are such that, based on past experience, I can safely assume that this guy is not *my* guy. But I don't know a lot about him. I invite you--John Childrey, e.g., et. al.--to say nice things about him. Or mean things. Hell, say what you want. No-one wants to "discuss" Peirce. But how about the phantasmagorical spectre of "Judicial Activism"? Sounds scary! To hear the $hrub tell it, anyone who disagrees with him is a "judicial activist." Certainly on the side of those pesky Radical Militant Librarians who are making the FBI's job a living hell. As I shouldn't have to point out, that door swings both ways.
What's at stake here? The administration, in their capacity as people who think that re-naming things changes their essence, ladles that label on their foes. Yet they never seem to see judicial activism in cases with which they agree. (Many hippies are just as bad, or worse, vis-a-vis consistency.) Given my own (pragmatic, and largely Holmesian) view of what the law is, I am fascinated by the way in which it changes. Everyone can think of changes they'd like to make, but what's at stake here is basically the nature of that change.
I'm just introducing the topic here. Me, I'm drawn to the overly philosophical topic of Natural Law. That fine figure of statuary up top there is a cat named Hugo de Groot, a.k.a. Grotius. Nice guy. I'll work him up later on this puppy, if reminded. Grotius thought we could recognize what God would want us to do in situations not covered explicitly by the Bible. There are primary Laws of Nature that are God's express will, but we can use our noodles to work out some of the other stuff, secondary laws of nature. Reason mandates, e.g., that Great Britain (in concert with naval allies) not be allowed to blockade the Dutch. Groot? Dutch.
Natural Law Theory is often opposed to Legal Pragmatism ... but I can save all that up for some kind of spectacular blowout after young Chaka up there on the right is confirmed. I want to *talk* about judicial activism. So, persons--what do you think?
A closely related topic, and with almost as much jargonal value as 'battalogical malversationism', is that of stare decisis. This short link defines the persistently and perniciously mis-pronounced term as: "Lat. "to stand by that which is decided." The principal that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts." Because the Supreme Court is the highest court (I mean hierarchically--not that I don't think Scalia, Thomas & Roberts don't need a bong hit), this principal is *always* "before" the court. What have they said before? Were they right? Has the situation changed? Should changing circumstances even matter? What are the implications of what they say now? Hmmm. But really, what this term will be bandied about *for*, can be summed up in 2 words:
Dred Scott. Actually, of course, I really need 2.25 words or so ... Roe v. Wade. In fact, with regard to social conservatives, 'Holy Grail' would work just as well. His mighty tyrannical $hrubbery can talk all the smack he wants about not applying a litmus test ... he wants Roe dead. He wants it's family dead. He wants it's house, burned to the ground. And since social conservatives, who put this monkey in the White House (apparently fearing the horrible creeping degeneracy of Elton John's recent nuptials), have been putting up with rather a lot of sociopathic shenanigans because here, finally is a man of [editorial note: uniformly bad or no] character who will solve the number one problem facing America ... they feel they are owed. Don't believe me? Check out what they had to say about Miers.
Okay, I've veered off into the partisan--except, of course, I've been sitting here the whole time. Sinisterly, perhaps. So let me say this: I have absolutely no quibble with people who believe abortion is wrong, or even murder. I do not consider it murder, tho' it might very well be wrong; I think women should have the right to choose, especially considering what Alito has said about women's rights--figuratively: "Woman!? Make me a sandwich!" I don't think that only my view is reasonable, or valid ... it depends on what I value, and my convictions regarding the importance of what my buddy John Childrey points out is a "made up" right ... of privacy.
I do have a problem with people who harrass women (or anyone) doing legal things, and certainly those who threaten violence. Because they are terrorists. Sorry Bill O'Reilly, the fact that I don't believe that George Bush could beat a reasonably well-educated chimpanzee at checkers does *NOT* mean that I like terrorists. I can be in favor of a right without being in favor of the thing itself. I think Nazis should be allowed to talk their trash, but I don't agree with them a'tall. I think their philistine pig-ignorance reflects poorly on everyone with a brain. But they can spew that crap. Coulter does.
Judicial activism is, in part, about the extent to which judges can effect changes on the law. It *should* be the topic of neutral discussion. My boy O.W. Holmes, Jr.? Big on restraint. It's a complicated question, and really has to be viewed within the framework of Stare Decisis. The reasons for this should be evident, but the question is not simple. Values that inform this discussion passionate, on both sides, and will play out with regard to a couple of famous or infamous cases, but that isn't relevant to what I want to investigate, *unless* one believes that one's own desire to see Roe overturned (or upheld) dictates one's approach to the question of judicial restraint vs. judicial activism.
Discuss. I'll work up an investigation of the question of the relation between judicial restraint, or activism, and legal pragmatism. Gimme a few days and a chapter to my boss, who is beginning to regard me as if a dead farm animal he can barely stand to drag out of the way of his Suburban.
Now;
What do we think the proper role of the court is? What then should we look for in a justice? With that firmly in hand ... does Alito fare well for you, or no?
