I haven't forgotten; plus, the Supreme Court!
I missed last week because I was travelling, but no excuses for this week, I will live up to my New Year's resolution and post a pic for HNT today. Resolution #2 is still out there; I have volunteered to work at a VA hospital one Sunday in March which is not a regular activity, but it is something.
Update from Tuesday's fight: Hardrock Bicycle versus PT Cruiser. I am still commuting on my bike to work so the spirit is still strong. Bike is making some noise because my rear dérailleur guard has been bent into the spokes; I'll take it in for repairs tomorrow to see about replacing it. More chips off my beautiful paint job. sniff, sniff. Knee is doing better, but still a little sore. I found out from my HR rep yesterday that my employees were concerned with my "uncharacteristic grumpiness" during a team meeting on Tuesday morning, but were relieved when they found out it was because I had been run over and was probably struggling to ice my knee during the phone call.
I have been reading the Alito inquisition/circus with some detached curiosity and amusement. I continue to wrestle with the real purpose of these hearings. A significant portion of Senate resources and time are devoted over a ~two week period to question a candidate for the Supreme Court toward what purpose? Could this time be better spent on other matters? Is the purpose of this process the last-minute litmus test of the voice of the common voter via their duly elected (I'm facetious with that term because of blatant gerrymandering as common course, the imperial nature of our current two-party system, etc.) representatives? Or is this already done because the President has been elected by the Electoral College (republican system, not a true democratic one when comes to the mechanics) and therefore the voice of the people has already been heard? Historically and logically, a President nominates candidates in line with his/her (eventually) ideology. Constitutionally, he acts only with the "advice and consent" of the Senate which is established through a simple majority vote.
Should the Senate vet candidates based on what it would appear their future judicial decisions would be? Whether they engage in "activism" or not? Or should it be solely on their qualifications? What are the qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice? The ABA actually evaluates nominees based on their professional qualifications and returns a judgement of "well qualified", "qualified", and "not qualified". Unfortunately, I could not find the specific criteria, but I'm sure it's an informal investigation by committee of cases they judged or participated in.
My thoughts: Presidents come and go. Supreme Court Justices will be around for a long time. I think that the Judicial branch has been overly politicized against its will. You might disagree with the current President at any point in time, but I think that as long as the individual is qualified (did you know there are no restrictions on citizenship or age?), then the solemnity, distinction, and immense power of the position tends to temper any radical beliefs. Furthermore, judges do not rule based on their personal beliefs; they rule based on precedent and interpretation of law. And, a discussion like this could not be complete if I didn't point out the example of David Souter-- he was appointed by George HW Bush in 1990. He is generally noted as a "liberal" judge which is a viewpoint that historically seems to be the logical progression of many years on the court. So, judges will always be their own people regardless of the circumstances they were nominated under. Note - I'm not saying that Antonin Scalia will ever liberalize; he is a bedrock conservative, who also is statistically the funniest judge on the Court.
Update from Tuesday's fight: Hardrock Bicycle versus PT Cruiser. I am still commuting on my bike to work so the spirit is still strong. Bike is making some noise because my rear dérailleur guard has been bent into the spokes; I'll take it in for repairs tomorrow to see about replacing it. More chips off my beautiful paint job. sniff, sniff. Knee is doing better, but still a little sore. I found out from my HR rep yesterday that my employees were concerned with my "uncharacteristic grumpiness" during a team meeting on Tuesday morning, but were relieved when they found out it was because I had been run over and was probably struggling to ice my knee during the phone call.
I have been reading the Alito inquisition/circus with some detached curiosity and amusement. I continue to wrestle with the real purpose of these hearings. A significant portion of Senate resources and time are devoted over a ~two week period to question a candidate for the Supreme Court toward what purpose? Could this time be better spent on other matters? Is the purpose of this process the last-minute litmus test of the voice of the common voter via their duly elected (I'm facetious with that term because of blatant gerrymandering as common course, the imperial nature of our current two-party system, etc.) representatives? Or is this already done because the President has been elected by the Electoral College (republican system, not a true democratic one when comes to the mechanics) and therefore the voice of the people has already been heard? Historically and logically, a President nominates candidates in line with his/her (eventually) ideology. Constitutionally, he acts only with the "advice and consent" of the Senate which is established through a simple majority vote.
Should the Senate vet candidates based on what it would appear their future judicial decisions would be? Whether they engage in "activism" or not? Or should it be solely on their qualifications? What are the qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice? The ABA actually evaluates nominees based on their professional qualifications and returns a judgement of "well qualified", "qualified", and "not qualified". Unfortunately, I could not find the specific criteria, but I'm sure it's an informal investigation by committee of cases they judged or participated in.
My thoughts: Presidents come and go. Supreme Court Justices will be around for a long time. I think that the Judicial branch has been overly politicized against its will. You might disagree with the current President at any point in time, but I think that as long as the individual is qualified (did you know there are no restrictions on citizenship or age?), then the solemnity, distinction, and immense power of the position tends to temper any radical beliefs. Furthermore, judges do not rule based on their personal beliefs; they rule based on precedent and interpretation of law. And, a discussion like this could not be complete if I didn't point out the example of David Souter-- he was appointed by George HW Bush in 1990. He is generally noted as a "liberal" judge which is a viewpoint that historically seems to be the logical progression of many years on the court. So, judges will always be their own people regardless of the circumstances they were nominated under. Note - I'm not saying that Antonin Scalia will ever liberalize; he is a bedrock conservative, who also is statistically the funniest judge on the Court.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home