Wednesday, November 17, 2004
Despite rumors, TCS not...really doing much of anything.
It's not fair to single out Cash's blog, as my links bar has lately been doing its best impression of a black hole. Nobody posting but me, though, and today I have but a few observations:
1. I don't believe there's a more embittered group of people than stadium and club personnel. I went to see the Pixies last night at the Aragon, and I'll be goddamned if I didn't continue my perfect streak of encountering surly, pugnacious, arrogant, and bored ticket-takers. At least the show was excellent.
2. On my run this evening, I encountered a sound I've never heard this late in the year: crickets! That's right, on November 17, there were crickets chirping in suburban Lombard, IL. I felt kind of bad for them, because they're likely to freeze within a week or so, but it was still a very pleasant evening, and it was fun to be reminded of summer.
3. I had the best cup of yogurt I ever had at around 12:20am on Tuesday, November 16.
There was more, but I'm off to see my fiancee. What's your excuse?
It's not fair to single out Cash's blog, as my links bar has lately been doing its best impression of a black hole. Nobody posting but me, though, and today I have but a few observations:
1. I don't believe there's a more embittered group of people than stadium and club personnel. I went to see the Pixies last night at the Aragon, and I'll be goddamned if I didn't continue my perfect streak of encountering surly, pugnacious, arrogant, and bored ticket-takers. At least the show was excellent.
2. On my run this evening, I encountered a sound I've never heard this late in the year: crickets! That's right, on November 17, there were crickets chirping in suburban Lombard, IL. I felt kind of bad for them, because they're likely to freeze within a week or so, but it was still a very pleasant evening, and it was fun to be reminded of summer.
3. I had the best cup of yogurt I ever had at around 12:20am on Tuesday, November 16.
There was more, but I'm off to see my fiancee. What's your excuse?
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
Is there anything better than the old "apocryphal allegation by a defamed accuser" routine? Maurice Clarett, one-time college football star turned jobless malingerer, now says hat Ohio State did him wrong, and that he's only bringing it up to clear his good name. That's good stuff. Read here and determine for yourself if it sounds like he might have ulterior motives. Football is so depressing sometimes, but also funny.
Thursday, November 04, 2004
As a teacher by training, if not yet by trade, I will take it upon myself to offer more than a response to Jeff's arguments. I'd also like to examine the conclusions he is drawing about American jurisprudence and government, which examination--like it or not--is highly germane to anyone reading this. Without further ado:
Assertion 1: Supreme Court justices are retiring or dying off.
Respondeo: We have only to look at Justice Renquist announcing that he has thyroid cancer. More will follow, most of these folks are over 70.
My response: I agree, although how many are we expecting to leave? It's only a 4-year term. Rehnquist was a junior member of the court when it decided Roe v Wade, which shows you how long they tend to stick around. BTW, death is the only way that I know of to remove a Supreme Court Justice.
Assertion 2: Bush will appoint strict constructionists to the Court.
Respondeo: Bush made several attempts to position very good judges for the Supreme Court by appointing them to the Appelate Courts. Miguel Estrada comes to mind, as well as, a few others whose names escape me. As I understand these appointees, they were those not interested in reinterpreting the constitution, but rather those who felt that it was their duty merely to apply it, using precedent as guide. For this reason, they caught the President's attention. It should be noted that the Democrats in the Senate stonewalled nearly all of these, and did not permit the Senate to vote on them. Bush, his patience exhausted, played a card of his own through Recess Appointments. These, I believe, are only temporary though.
My response: Agreed, and note the part where strict constructionists feel it is their duty only to apply the constitution, using precedent as a guide. Reinterpretation is considered outside the pale for strict constructionists, as they contend this practice to be inherently fraught with danger. Jeff himself is obviously a member of the strict construction camp, and although few people have an opinion on the subject, everybody should really pick a side of the fence with regard to the legal interpretation of the constitution.
For my part, and to totally contradict myself, I can see both sides of it. We must interpret the constitution, because the document is intentionally vague. Applying it to new situations or in new ways is useful, but also dangerous. At best, it can afford us a new way of protecting our rights--see judicial reviw and Marbury v Madison. At worst, Jeff argues, it takes away from rights we already have.I don't know where to draw the line, but Jeff seems to think that Roe v Wade takes things too far:
Assertion 3: The Constitution was misinterpreted in Roe v. Wade.
Respondeo: The Supreme Court created a "right to privacy" found nowhere in the Constitution. (Search, you shan't find it in there.) Further, having created it, they used it to remove from the individual States the right to make laws concerning abortion. The States found another of their powers seized. In a single day, long-standing laws regulating or prohibiting abortion were struck down. The people that day lost power to rule themselves on this issue. It was not decided by a democratic majority in the States or the Nation, but rather by judicial fiat. That's not democracy, amici, but rather oligarchy (bad rule by a privledged few.) Had the American people decided the issue themselves on January 21st 1971, I could only complain of bad law and argue that the law be changed. Since such was not the case, I have to argue against the Supreme Court both usurping States' rights and interpreting the Constitution not on precedent but rather sentiment (of the times).
Jeff claims that the right to privacy we infer from the Roe v Wade decision is problematic, primarily because the Supreme Court used it to take power away from the states. Specifically, laws against abortion werre declared unconstitutional (because they violated the "newfound" right to privacy), and in Jeff's eyes that just ain't right.
Jeff reveals himself here to be a stalwart Republican, who have over the years concerned themselves with states' rights advocacy (This is ironic, considering the reason for the party's genesis was the abolotion of slavery, which the 13th amendment is still the nadir of states' rights--but I digress). I think his is an increasingly popular position among Americans, as evidenced in part by the re-election of GW Bush on Tuesday.
It's also one I have to say I agree with, but only to a point. While I believe that we as a nation have matured politically to the point that we no longer require the "protection" of the Electoral College, I think an important and recognized function of our government and our constitution is to protect the minority from the "tyranny of the majority." This is another important fiber in our nation's rich democratic tapestry that you shan't find mention of in the Constitution. Perhaps this is what the Supreme Court was tyring to accomplish when they broke with legal precedent in deciding this case for Roe.
Personally, the protection of the minority might almost be enough for me to endorse the Roe v. Wade decision, if the thing we had to weight against it was anything but a human life. Ultimately, my personal morality tells me that the preciousness of our human experience outweighs other rights to which we may or may not be entitled. The semantics of in vitro humanity mean little to me when you consider that the fetus is going, if it is allowed, to turn into a person, perhaps a great person, and our laws and rules should protect this above all other eventualities. By outlawing anti-abortion legislation, the Supreme Court made it essentially impossible to do this. And there is no question in my mind that abortion is one thing a group of like-minded individuals should be able to stop, if they choose to. I am unable to separate my belief in the odiousness of the act of abortion from my opinion on the law that protects it.
I suspect that this is true of Jeff and many other anti-Roe activists, as well, and in the end I've got no problem with moral certitude in this case. Put this decision to the people, and let them make the right decision.
In the final analysis, we have come no closer to determining how anomalous a decision was Roe v. Wade in US Supreme court history. But I feel better for having examined the issue, and attempting to sort truth from conviction. Any and all comments are welcome. Thanks, Jeff, for your efforts!
Assertion 1: Supreme Court justices are retiring or dying off.
Respondeo: We have only to look at Justice Renquist announcing that he has thyroid cancer. More will follow, most of these folks are over 70.
My response: I agree, although how many are we expecting to leave? It's only a 4-year term. Rehnquist was a junior member of the court when it decided Roe v Wade, which shows you how long they tend to stick around. BTW, death is the only way that I know of to remove a Supreme Court Justice.
Assertion 2: Bush will appoint strict constructionists to the Court.
Respondeo: Bush made several attempts to position very good judges for the Supreme Court by appointing them to the Appelate Courts. Miguel Estrada comes to mind, as well as, a few others whose names escape me. As I understand these appointees, they were those not interested in reinterpreting the constitution, but rather those who felt that it was their duty merely to apply it, using precedent as guide. For this reason, they caught the President's attention. It should be noted that the Democrats in the Senate stonewalled nearly all of these, and did not permit the Senate to vote on them. Bush, his patience exhausted, played a card of his own through Recess Appointments. These, I believe, are only temporary though.
My response: Agreed, and note the part where strict constructionists feel it is their duty only to apply the constitution, using precedent as a guide. Reinterpretation is considered outside the pale for strict constructionists, as they contend this practice to be inherently fraught with danger. Jeff himself is obviously a member of the strict construction camp, and although few people have an opinion on the subject, everybody should really pick a side of the fence with regard to the legal interpretation of the constitution.
For my part, and to totally contradict myself, I can see both sides of it. We must interpret the constitution, because the document is intentionally vague. Applying it to new situations or in new ways is useful, but also dangerous. At best, it can afford us a new way of protecting our rights--see judicial reviw and Marbury v Madison. At worst, Jeff argues, it takes away from rights we already have.I don't know where to draw the line, but Jeff seems to think that Roe v Wade takes things too far:
Assertion 3: The Constitution was misinterpreted in Roe v. Wade.
Respondeo: The Supreme Court created a "right to privacy" found nowhere in the Constitution. (Search, you shan't find it in there.) Further, having created it, they used it to remove from the individual States the right to make laws concerning abortion. The States found another of their powers seized. In a single day, long-standing laws regulating or prohibiting abortion were struck down. The people that day lost power to rule themselves on this issue. It was not decided by a democratic majority in the States or the Nation, but rather by judicial fiat. That's not democracy, amici, but rather oligarchy (bad rule by a privledged few.) Had the American people decided the issue themselves on January 21st 1971, I could only complain of bad law and argue that the law be changed. Since such was not the case, I have to argue against the Supreme Court both usurping States' rights and interpreting the Constitution not on precedent but rather sentiment (of the times).
Jeff claims that the right to privacy we infer from the Roe v Wade decision is problematic, primarily because the Supreme Court used it to take power away from the states. Specifically, laws against abortion werre declared unconstitutional (because they violated the "newfound" right to privacy), and in Jeff's eyes that just ain't right.
Jeff reveals himself here to be a stalwart Republican, who have over the years concerned themselves with states' rights advocacy (This is ironic, considering the reason for the party's genesis was the abolotion of slavery, which the 13th amendment is still the nadir of states' rights--but I digress). I think his is an increasingly popular position among Americans, as evidenced in part by the re-election of GW Bush on Tuesday.
It's also one I have to say I agree with, but only to a point. While I believe that we as a nation have matured politically to the point that we no longer require the "protection" of the Electoral College, I think an important and recognized function of our government and our constitution is to protect the minority from the "tyranny of the majority." This is another important fiber in our nation's rich democratic tapestry that you shan't find mention of in the Constitution. Perhaps this is what the Supreme Court was tyring to accomplish when they broke with legal precedent in deciding this case for Roe.
Personally, the protection of the minority might almost be enough for me to endorse the Roe v. Wade decision, if the thing we had to weight against it was anything but a human life. Ultimately, my personal morality tells me that the preciousness of our human experience outweighs other rights to which we may or may not be entitled. The semantics of in vitro humanity mean little to me when you consider that the fetus is going, if it is allowed, to turn into a person, perhaps a great person, and our laws and rules should protect this above all other eventualities. By outlawing anti-abortion legislation, the Supreme Court made it essentially impossible to do this. And there is no question in my mind that abortion is one thing a group of like-minded individuals should be able to stop, if they choose to. I am unable to separate my belief in the odiousness of the act of abortion from my opinion on the law that protects it.
I suspect that this is true of Jeff and many other anti-Roe activists, as well, and in the end I've got no problem with moral certitude in this case. Put this decision to the people, and let them make the right decision.
In the final analysis, we have come no closer to determining how anomalous a decision was Roe v. Wade in US Supreme court history. But I feel better for having examined the issue, and attempting to sort truth from conviction. Any and all comments are welcome. Thanks, Jeff, for your efforts!
