Not to Forget Enthusiasm
In my enthusiasm yesterday I forgot enthusiasm. That's actually why we're going to win. Enthusiasm. We've recovered the ball after a bit of a fumble, we've got a humungous running back, and a game plan that's a library. There's no way we can't win, we're going up against a street gang. Even Bill First is feeling feisty:
"Obstructing judicial nominees should be a thing of the past. If the Democrats want to obstruct a nominee and not give us our constitutional right of advice and consent, an up-or-down vote, we'll take it to the mat. If a filibuster comes back, I'm not going to hesitate to employ the constitutional option to get an up-or-down vote."
A note on the Humungatoid:
What's important in a Supreme Court justice, given brilliance, scholarship, experience, and courage -- is intent; does the man respect what has gone before, or does he hold the past in contempt as inferior to his own immaculate person?
Professor Bainbridge nicely expresses the requirements for a good justice within the American system: a respect for "Originalism, Constitutionalism, Traditionalism", or, (my terms) a respect for "Intent, Text, and Tradition". This, taken all together, is the mystic concept of nation, a structure an ethos a "being", something existent before the birth of contemporary man and extending to the misty future of generations unborn. It's a commitment to a kind of nation-creature, created by man...but not by man alone, and having a cohesive life of centuries. In this conception the individual is in service to history, history past and history becoming; each man's part is but a tiny expression within an immensity, and his duty is preservation.
True, this is, a bit, "mystic"; it's a little loose. It's an attitude, not a specific textual analytical reference. But as an attitude it's solid. It makes a man humble. He at least knows that the nation and the constitution is not just what he says it is. --It is true that men sharing this humility can disagree on a specific interpretation, but at least they not going to jump out of gravitational force and float.
The thing to look for in Alito is his concept of "precedent"; is it the history of the nation, or is it only the court decisions of the last 30 years?
"Obstructing judicial nominees should be a thing of the past. If the Democrats want to obstruct a nominee and not give us our constitutional right of advice and consent, an up-or-down vote, we'll take it to the mat. If a filibuster comes back, I'm not going to hesitate to employ the constitutional option to get an up-or-down vote."
A note on the Humungatoid:
What's important in a Supreme Court justice, given brilliance, scholarship, experience, and courage -- is intent; does the man respect what has gone before, or does he hold the past in contempt as inferior to his own immaculate person?
Professor Bainbridge nicely expresses the requirements for a good justice within the American system: a respect for "Originalism, Constitutionalism, Traditionalism", or, (my terms) a respect for "Intent, Text, and Tradition". This, taken all together, is the mystic concept of nation, a structure an ethos a "being", something existent before the birth of contemporary man and extending to the misty future of generations unborn. It's a commitment to a kind of nation-creature, created by man...but not by man alone, and having a cohesive life of centuries. In this conception the individual is in service to history, history past and history becoming; each man's part is but a tiny expression within an immensity, and his duty is preservation.
True, this is, a bit, "mystic"; it's a little loose. It's an attitude, not a specific textual analytical reference. But as an attitude it's solid. It makes a man humble. He at least knows that the nation and the constitution is not just what he says it is. --It is true that men sharing this humility can disagree on a specific interpretation, but at least they not going to jump out of gravitational force and float.
The thing to look for in Alito is his concept of "precedent"; is it the history of the nation, or is it only the court decisions of the last 30 years?
posted by mouse at 12:37 PM
1 Comments:
Note to myself:
This entry went okay, tone okay. I do note that I forgot to put the quote in a block. Again, I finished, and punched "publish". I've got to learn to wait a few minutes.
Post a Comment
<< Home