GEORGE WILL HAS A BRAIN-DEAD PIECE ON WHO SHOULD BE NOMINATED TO THE SUPREME COURT.
I don’t get it. Will is a smart guy. How can he fall for such a ridiculous position, which amounts to a rejection of a principled judicial philosophy and that has a demonstrably poor track record when past presidents have tried to follow it.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch . . .
ROBERT BORK HAS A STELLAR PIECE ON THE NEED TO APPOINT ORIGINALISTS TO THE COURT.
It also has a judicious judicial takedown of Justice O’Connor as a way of making his point.
EXCERPT:
Consider just a few of the court’s accomplishments: The justices have weakened the authority of other institutions, public and private, such as schools, businesses and churches; assisted in sapping the vitality of religion through a transparently false interpretation of the establishment clause; denigrated marriage and family; destroyed taboos about vile language in public; protected as free speech the basest pornography, including computer-simulated child pornography; weakened political parties and permitted prior restraints on political speech, violating the core of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech; created a right to abortion virtually on demand, invalidating the laws of all 50 states; whittled down capital punishment, on the path, apparently, to abolishing it entirely; mounted a campaign to normalize homosexuality, culminating soon, it seems obvious, in a right to homosexual marriage; permitted discrimination on the basis of race and sex at the expense of white males; and made the criminal justice system needlessly slow and complex, tipping the balance in favor of criminals.
Justice O’Connor, a warm, down-to-earth, and very likeable person, joined many, though not all, of these bold attempts to remake America. Whatever one may think of these outcomes as matters of policy, not one is authorized by the Constitution, and some are directly contrary to it. All of them, however, are consistent with the left-liberal liberationist impulse that advances moral anarchy.
What I don’t get is why a guy as smart as Jimmy Akin is so prone to hyperbole as to call Will’s article “brain dead”. Disagree or not, that’s pretty harsh.
Jesus was not at all averse to hyperbole, and St. Paul was simply masterful at it. I would venture to guess that intelligence and the use of hyperbole would not correlate negatively.
And anyone who disagrees with that clearly has all the perception of a cherrystone clam.
Sometimes George lets his smarts get in the way of common sense.
“And anyone who disagrees with that clearly has all the perception of a cherrystone clam.”
Ahem, that would be a Pismo clam.
Notice, I did not mean to imply that hyperbole was wrong per se. Just that to be so prone to it as “to call Will’s article, ‘brain dead'” is not a sign of enlightenment. It is one thing to disagree with the article, but to exaggerate it’s “stupidity” to the point of brain dead is clearly overstating.
I think “brain dead” sums it up quite nicely.
I’m very happy that this vacancy has come at last. For years I have been supporting the Republican party, despite having serious disagreements with some of their actions, precisely to help them be in power at this very moment.
If they don’t nominate and confirm someone who will follow the Constitution, there is no reason for me to ever vote for them or give them a dime. Ever.
I am sympathetic with your sentiments there, LawfulGood, but in a practical sense we still may have to make the choice (as infuriating as it is) between a president that will appoint so-called moderate judges and those that will appoint avowed leftists. The lesser of two evils is sometimes just a political reality.
I sure hope W doesn’t disappoint, though. Like you, I would find that a bitter pill, especially given his apparent willingness to disregard political expediency in order to achieve his goals.
I appreciate the comments Tim. And I admire your level-headedness.
( Do you sense a “but” coming? 🙂 )
But…
I’m just not going to do it. The most aggrgous example of judical excess that we have is the invented “right” of abortion. I am currently giving the Republican party the benefit of the doubt. I am assuming that they are really just as horrified as I am about a million and a half babies being butchered every year. But that they have to play the political games necessary in order to place themselves in a position to stop it.
I’m very aware that this may be an illusion, but it’s what I’m holding on to. If this turns out to not be true, I will be bound by my conscious to go find the people who are serious about stopping it and helping them instead. This would probably be a third party that has no hope of winning in my lifetime, but that doesn’t matter. I’m called to be faithful, not successful.
Honestly, I believe enough people agree with me to take the Republican party out of power. And, should they abandon us on this appointment, I would be fine with that happening.
Sleeper picks:
Orrin Hatch
Rudy Guiliani
I’m presuming that Mr. Akin thinks Will is “brain dead” because there is something outstandingly, egregiously wrong with J. Harvie Wilkinson. I wish someone could tell me what it is. I’ve always been impressed since Wilkinson (and I’ve been following him since he published Harry Byrd and the Changing Face of Virgnia Politics when he was still an undergraduate. He’s always struck me as a smart, reasonable guy, and one who as a judge understands that his job isn’t to “do good things,” but to apply the law. As an appeals court judge, he has to regard Roe v. Wade as binding precedent, but is there any indication that he thinks it was a good idea, and that if he had the chance to overturn it as a Supreme Court justice he’d refuse to do so?
My pick is Judge Emilio Garza. Catholic. Excellent qualifications. Served in the military. Pro-life. Believes in the constitution.
Sounds good to me.