The Errington Thompson Show 7-05-08
I talk with Linda Monk, constitutional scholar and author, about the recent Supreme Court decisions, including gun control, Exxon Mobil, habeus corpus, Gitmo, and more. Great show. Enjoy.
Entries Tagged as 'Supreme court'
Supreme Court says yes to guns
Updated
I find it interesting that the Supreme Court has given a big thumbs up to the 2nd amendment and a thumbs down to the 4th.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
—–
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court trashed a 32 year old DC law which banned handguns. The NYT described the law this way - Not only did the 1976 law make it practically impossible for an individual to legally possess a handgun in the district, but it also spelled out rules for the storage of rifles and shotguns. But the court did not articulate a specific standard of review for what might be a reasonable restraint on the right to possess a firearm.
I can and will go through this decision. But, it seems to me that, we need to make the 2nd amendment clear. We can argue for weeks on end how to read the 2nd amendment. How should the militia clause be read? Are “the people” part of the militia or are the frames talking about all citizens? There is no “right” answer. We need to amend it.
I think the exercise of trying to figure out what the framers meant more than 200 years ago is crazy. Our society is completely different than theirs. As a matter of fact, walking through East St. Louis today is very different than back in 1789. They had no idea what a drive by shooting is but that is a reality of our life or at least life in the inner city of Houston, Baltimore and several other of our big cities. The constitution needs to reflect today’s reality.
As a trauma surgeon, I see almost everything bad that can happen with a gun. I’ve seen accidental shootings which is left 10 year old boys paralyzed. I’ve seen the anguish of the parents as they are wondering how the kids got the gun. Unfortunately, the anguish and the sorrow simply don’t matter. The bottom line, we need to be more responsible with our firearms but, since we aren’t, we must have the ability to make laws that keep us safe. An ER physician from Emory University shares this sentiment in an OP-Ed in WaPO.
So, in my opinion, new constitutional amendments are needed. (Better yet we may need a new constitution but I’ll save that idea for another post.) We must be able to ban assault weapons. We need to be able to ban fully automatic weapons (machine guns). We need to be able to control handguns. We need to be able to keep guns from felons or the 0mentality disturbed. Safety locks are not unreasonable. Frequent gun registration is not an unnecessary burden. Finally, we should be able to ban armor piercing bullets.
I have no desire to ban all weapons. I have no desire to ban all handguns. Please don’t e-mail me with statistics. These statistics have been massaged by both sides of this debate so much that you can prove almost anything if you look at the right statistic. I’m sure there’s some advocates for guns who can show me a statistic in which having a gun makes you smarter, more attractive and more successful in life. I’m sure someone on the other side of the argument can show me statistics that banning weapons allows you to own two hybrids and increases the whale population.
Reasonable people should be able to sit down and come up with a reasonable laws. Keep the zealots from both sides in the closet. (Zealots would be those who think everyone should be able to have any gun that anyone wants. On the other side, a zealot would be someone who believes that all guns should be outlawed.)
Supreme Court stands up and rebukes White House
There is a ton that needs to be said about this decision. Instead of me wandering thru this decision, let’s see what Glenn Greenwald, a lawyer, has to say.
From Greenwald:
In a major rebuke to the Bush administration’s theories of presidential power — and in an equally stinging rebuke to the bipartisan political class which has supported the Bush detention policies — the U.S. Supreme Court today, in a 5-4 decision (.pdf), declared Section 7 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 unconstitutional. The Court struck down that section of the MCA because it purported to abolish the writ of habeas corpus — the means by which a detainee challenges his detention in a court — despite the fact that the Constitution permits suspension of that writ only “in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion.”
As a result, Guantanamo detainees accused of being “enemy combatants” have the right to challenge the validity of their detention in a full-fledged U.S. federal court proceeding. The ruling today is the first time in U.S. history that the Court has ruled that detainees held by the U.S. Government in a place where the U.S. does not exercise formal sovereignty (Cuba technically is sovereign over Guantanamo) are nonetheless entitled to the Constitutional guarantee of habeas corpus whenever they are held in a place where the U.S. exercises effective control. [Read more →]
What’s Going On: News Roundup (Late Edition)
I know my news update is late but, I’m going to use the excuse I always use… I’m a trauma surgeon.
- Dell computers has been found guilty of fraud, false advertising, deceptive business practices, and abusive debt collection practices. The lawsuit was brought by the New York Attorney General. It appears that several customers bought on-site service and never got that on-site service. On a personal note, this is just extremely sad. Over 10 years ago, I switched from Gateway computers to Dell computers because of service. I remember having to wake up and call Gateway at two or three in the morning in order to get somebody on the phone. For over five or six years there was no problem getting anyone on the phone at Dell and they were always happy to help. I guess Dell is following a trend that we’ve seen all over the country where service is a four letter word.
- Eugene Robinson, from the Washington Post, has a few words to say about Senator Hillary Clinton’s assassination reference. He believes that this maybe an ugly window into her soul. I hope not. Let’s use the sleep deprivation argument again. I would like to say that he has the last word, but I’m sure more people will write about this incident. I guess, in final analysis, Clinton has become a caricature of the Democratic party. She is still in a race that was over two months ago when everybody knew the math was not in her favor. Yet she still soldiered on, like Don Quixote. Why? To what end? Rachel Maddow, from Air America, had an interesting article in the Huffington Post. She argues that Clinton should take her case through the Rules and Regulations Committee, then the Credentials Committee, and then to the floor of the Democratic National Convention. Another article in the Washington Post suggests that Clinton doesn’t really have a path to victory.
- The Supreme Court upheld workers rights! Surprise! This decision involved two cases about workplace retaliation. The ridiculously conservative Supreme Court ruled in favor of workers. I’m pleased, but flabbergasted.
- Is tagging the same thing as vandalism? One hundred and fifty thousand dollars for the damage isn’t tagging, its vandalism. I’m glad they caught this guy. The joke was over $149,000 ago.
- The suffering in China continues. Huge aftershocks reportedly destroyed over 400 thousand houses. Was that an aftershock or a separate quake? Are we seeing some new type of seismic activity in China that we haven’t seen recently? It appears that this earthquake has this been going on and on and on for weeks. Death tolls is well over 60 thousand!
What’s going on: News Round up
Monday’s News:
- Remember the story about Al Qaeda members who were associated with the USS Cole bombing that were walking around free in Yemeni. Well, a Yemeni judge has picked up Jaber Elbaneh and thrown him in jail. I’m not sure what that means or how long he will stay there, but this is a good first step (seven years too late. )
- Dick Morris, who regularly appears on Fox “News,” wrote an incoherent piece in the Washington Post yesterday. I’m still trying to deconstruct it. I think he is trying to say that Senator Barack Obama is ahead of Senator John McCain now, but that McCain can close the gap. I think that’s what he means, but I’m just guessing.
- An American soldier was using the Koran as target practice. Major General Jeffery Hammond held a meeting with Iraqi leaders and officially apologized to a group characterized in the article as Iraqi leaders. Did they mean the religious leaders or the other guys? If it was religious leaders, then it was a meaningful gesture. If not, then it doesn’t mean so much.
- There was a great series in Washignton Post on childhood obesity. Physical Education, which should be re-named “physical activity” since there isn’t a lot of education going on, needs to be mandatory in our schools. If a student has a physical handicap, then they should do best they can, but everyone needs to exercise. As a country we can save billions if we would all exercise.
- The Supreme Court was able to agree on something that wasn’t a five to four decision. They upheld a child pornography law with a seven to two vote. I found the dissent by Justices Souter and Ginsberg rather thoughtful.
- Obama picked up a couple big endorsements by today Senator Robert Byrd and Billionaire Warren Buffett. This comes just ahead of tomorrow’s primary in Oregon and Kentucky.
- I almost forgot something, which is statement in itself. The suffering in Myanmar is going to get worse before it gets better. More outside relief is being let into the country. And in China, there was a moment of silence for those who died in last week’s earthquake. The whole country stood in silence at 2:28 in the afternoon. The numbers that are slowing coming in are mind-boggling. Since the start of the rescue effort, 158 rescue workers have died in landslides .
Scalia on 60 Minutes
This is the first half of a two-part interview with Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. I’m not sure why Leslie Stahl was chosen to interview him. It is interesting to hear his thoughts on the Constitution. I don’t think that he is right, but he is interesting.
Scalia Says to Country: “Get Over it”
There is a sense of calm that comes over a professor once he or she gets tenured. All of a sudden they are free to write and say what they please without the risk of being fired. Judge Antonio Scalia sits on the Supreme Court like a tenured professor. He proved that he is skilled at spinning a political discussion just like “regular” politicos. For him to point to Al Gore and suggest that it was his fault that the Supreme Court took the case or that they made what is one of the worst decisions in modern history is laughable.
60 Minutes has an interview with him this week.
Supreme Court hears Photo ID law
Block the vote. That’s what this is about. It isn’t about making the voting process better. There are plenty of fake ID’s out there. Instead, this is about excluding a block of voters who are poor, who have issues with transportation, who are elderly.
This is part of an ongoing process to make a permanent Republican majority.
PBS’s NOW did a great piece on this. I’ll try and post it later on this evening.
Death Penalty
If you want to get into an argument with a group of people, any group of people, bring up the death penalty. If you play your cards right you get a real fight to break out. Americans don’t really have a consensus opinion on the death penalty. So, there is no wonder that we don’t agree on lethal injection either.
I’m not sure that you can say that injecting drugs into someone to kill them is cruel and unusual punishment. Then again, I don’t believe that the State should be in the business of killing its own citizens for any reason. Here’s the problem that I see. Doctors who make up the cocktail of drugs that are to be given to the prisoner seem to have an ethical dilemma. You can’t be in the business of saving lives and relieving suffering if you are actively killing a healthy human being. So, who is going to give the meds? Who should give the meds?
———-
From WaPo:
The Supreme Court issued an eleventh-hour stay for a Mississippi murderer scheduled to be put to death last night, the third execution the justices have blocked since agreeing to decide whether lethal injections violate the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
The reprieve came less than an hour before Earl Wesley Berry was to be put to death for the kidnapping and murder of Mary Bounds in rural Mississippi in 1987.
Death penalty activists and criminal justice experts said the court’s action is further evidence of a de facto moratorium on executions until it decides the lethal injection issue. The court itself has not declared such intentions, but its actions in Berry’s case were closely watched for clues. (more…)
Supreme Court to look at Exxon case
It has now been 18 years since the Exxon Valdez disaster. Tons of crude polluted the Alaska coast. Exxon was fine $5 billion. They appealed. The fine was lowered to $2 billion. Exxon-Mobil’s net profit last year was $39.5 Billion. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear their case. At stake is can you and I hold companies accountable for the actions of their employees.
———
From RS:
The US Supreme Court said Monday it would examine the legality under maritime law of damages of 2.5 billion dollars awarded against ExxonMobil for the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil tanker disaster.
It is the latest twist in a long-running saga which began when the Exxon Valdez crashed into a reef in Prince William Sound, Alaska, on March 24, 1989 spilling 11 million gallons of crude into the waters.
It was the worst oil disaster ever to hit the United States, and afterwards ExxonMobil spent some 2.1 billion dollars cleaning up the polluted coastline and more than 300 million in compensation for fishermen and locals affected by the catastrophe. (more…)
Some quick items
Brett Favre has now thrown more touchdown passes then any other player in NFL history. Sweet.
UN tries to quell the violence in Burma (Myanmar).
In Darfur region of the Sudan, rebels have killed 10 UN peacekeepers. The US remains on the sidelines as one of the greatest humanitarian disasters in history plays out.
The Supreme Court is going to take on some very controversial issues. Is lethal injection cruel? Differences in criminal sentencing for crack cocaine and powder cocaine? What court has a say in terrorists held by the US overseas? I’m feeling that I’m going to need to stock up on my Pepcid for these rulings. I guarantee that they will be very conservative.
The President continues to complain about Democrats spending habits while asking for $190 Billion to fight the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The press continue to paint Mitt Romney as a leader and a problem solver in spite of the fact that he has criticized Hillary Clinton’s Healthcare plan that looks very similar to the one that he signed in Mass. He opened one of the debates with possibly the dumbest and most misleading answer of all time. His Moron faith isn’t an issue. The way that answered the question about his sons not being in the military is an issue and it should continue to be an issue.
Finally, Ms. Moneypenny has died. The original Moneypenny, Lois Maxwell, who starred in 14 James Bond movies has passed.
Oh, thanks. I appreciate everyone who is reading and commenting on my blog (even the knuckleheads). Where’s the Outrage has had more traffic than ever this month and we appreciate it.
The Errington Thompson Show 6/30/07
I’m out of town. Jennifer is back in the studio. I call in and we discuss Ann Coulter. Why? Because I believe that she can’t be ignored. The only reason that she has sold so many books is because progressives have not spoken out against her hate speech. I interview Cynthia Brown, expert on education, from the Center for American Progress. We tackle No child Left Behind and other issues in the classroom. I then chat with Glenn Greenwald, lawyer and blogger at Salon.com, about the US Attorney scandal. Jennifer wraps up the show with a scary journey through several recent Supreme Court decisions.
Rough cut.
Supreme Court restricts abortion
As a surgeon, I really don’t want the courts telling me what kind of procedures that I perform. We already have the most regulated business in the world - medicine.
As far as a women’s right, it is exactly that, a women’s right. The Supreme Court with 8 men and 5 Catholics decided to uphold the federal ban on “partial birth” abortion. There is a lot of confusion and mis-information that surrounds this procedure. The bottom-line is a woman should have the right to decide what is best for her as long as the fetus in not viable. If the fetus is viable the woman should be able to choose between adoption and parenthood.
You should not be able to regulate what I do with my body. Sure there are some exceptions. Until anyone can come up with a definition of when human live begins, we should agree to disagree. The “pro-life” folks will have none of this. They want to impose their religious beliefs on everyone. They will not stop until there are no legal abortions performed anywhere.
The full Supreme Court decision is here.
Question - Are the Democrats ready for a knockdown drag out fight with the Republicans? This is a federal law. Congress can change the law but the president would have to sign the legislation. This will never happen. The next question is can Congress override a veto? I think that the answer is No. For now, the Democrats will have to work toward getting a more liberal Congress and a democratic President.
Elections have consequences. Great post by The Carpetbagger and Think Progress.
Justice Kennedy having heart trouble
from CNN:
After suffering from mild heart pain over the weekend, Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy was hospitalized for a “routine procedure” to keep an artery open, the court said.
Doctors inserted a stent Saturday to supplement a stent placed in the artery about 10 months ago. The associate justice was released from the Washington Hospital Center on Sunday and was back at work Tuesday.
A stent is a short, metal mesh tube used to keep arteries open. more
——-
I wish him well. I can’t imagine Bush chosing another Justice to the Supreme Court. Just thinking about it, I’m getting chest pain.
A real Senator wouldn’t lie to the Supreme Court would he/she?
What’s the deal with these guys? I just don’t get it. This is like the mafia. Win at all costs. There is no time where you can admit that you were wrong. Never.
Senator Graham of South Carolina and Senator Kyl of Colorado, both R’s, filed a lie with the Supreme Court in an attempt to influence the Hamdan decision. These guys inserted testimony into the Congressional record after the fact. This does happen from time to time so it is not that unusual. The twist is that they then gave the testimony to the Supreme Court in order to argue that the Senate had are ready discussed this case in conjunction with the Detainee Treatment Act. Therefore, the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction over this case and the legislative branch of the government did. Thankfully, the Supreme Court rejected this argument. But here’s the problem, these guys tried to hoodwink the Supreme Court. This wasn’t through skillful lawyering but instead through lying. How can this be acceptable behavior for a United States senator?
John Dean, former White House counsel to President Nixon, has the whole story.
Senators Kyl and Graham’s Hamdan v. Rumsfeld Scam: The Deceptive Amicus Brief They Filed in the Guantanamo Detainee Case
By JOHN W. DEAN
—-
Wednesday, Jul. 05, 2006
Last week, the Supreme Court issued its historic decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. There, it dealt a substantial blow to the Bush/Cheney Administration’s plans for the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo and, potentially, elsewhere as well - ruling out, for instance, the option of using military commissions without due process to try detainees.The decision itself has been widely discussed. Less widely discussed, however, has been its backstory.The Bush/Cheney Administration has been doing everything possible to keep its treatment of purported terrorist detainees out of the federal courts, particularly the Supreme Court. To assist the Administration, Republican Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Jon Kyl of Arizona engaged in a blatant scam that was revealed during the briefing of Hamdan.Senators Graham and Kyl not only misled their Senate colleagues, but also shamed their high offices by trying to deliberately mislead the U.S. Supreme Court. Their effort failed. I have not seen so blatant a ploy, or abuse of power, since Nixon’s reign.
To understand their ruse, a bit of background information about both the Hamdan case and the Detainee Treatment Act is necessary.
[Read more →]
Bush Administration and War Crimes
From the Los Angeles Times
ROSA BROOKS
Did Bush commit war crimes?
Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld could expose officials to prosecution.
Rosa Brooks
June 30, 2006
THE SUPREME Court on Thursday dealt the Bush administration a stinging rebuke, declaring in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld that military commissions for trying terrorist suspects violate both U.S. military law and the Geneva Convention.
But the real blockbuster in the Hamdan decision is the court’s holding that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention applies to the conflict with Al Qaeda — a holding that makes high-ranking Bush administration officials potentially subject to prosecution under the federal War Crimes Act.
The provisions of the Geneva Convention were intended to protect noncombatants — including prisoners — in times of armed conflict. But as the administration has repeatedly noted, most of these protections apply only to conflicts between states. Because Al Qaeda is not a state, the administration argued that the Geneva Convention didn’t apply to the war on terror. These assertions gave the administration’s arguments about the legal framework for fighting terrorism a through-the-looking-glass quality. On the one hand, the administration argued that the struggle against terrorism was a war, subject only to the law of war, not U.S. criminal or constitutional law. On the other hand, the administration said the Geneva Convention didn’t apply to the war with Al Qaeda, which put the war on terror in an anything-goes legal limbo.
This novel theory served as the administration’s legal cover for a wide range of questionable tactics, ranging from the Guantanamo military tribunals to administration efforts to hold even U.S. citizens indefinitely without counsel, charge or trial.
Perhaps most troubling, it allowed the administration to claim that detained terrorism suspects could be subjected to interrogation techniques that constitute torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment under international law, such as “waterboarding,” placing prisoners in painful physical positions, sexual humiliation and extreme sleep deprivation.
Under Bush administration logic, these tactics were not illegal under U.S. law because U.S. law was trumped by the law of war, and they weren’t illegal under the law of war either, because Geneva Convention prohibitions on torture and cruel treatment were not applicable to the conflict with Al Qaeda.
In 2005, Congress angered the administration by passing Sen. John McCain’s amendment explicitly prohibiting the use of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees. But Congress did not attach criminal penalties to violations of the amendment, and the administration has repeatedly indicated its intent to ignore it.
The Hamdan decision may change a few minds within the administration. Although the decision’s practical effect on the military tribunals is unclear — the administration may be able to gain explicit congressional authorization for the tribunals, or it may be able to modify them to comply with the laws of war — the court’s declaration that Common Article 3 applies to the war on terror is of enormous significance. Ultimately, it could pave the way for war crimes prosecutions of those responsible for abusing detainees.
Common Article 3 forbids “cruel treatment and torture [and] outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.” The provision’s language is sweeping enough to prohibit many of the interrogation techniques approved by the Bush administration. That’s why the administration had argued that Common Article 3 did not apply to the war on terror, even though legal experts have long concluded that it was intended to provide minimum rights guarantees for all conflicts not otherwise covered by the Geneva Convention.
But here’s where the rubber really hits the road. Under federal criminal law, anyone who “commits a war crime … shall be fined … or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.” And a war crime is defined as “any conduct … which constitutes a violation of Common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva.” In other words, with the Hamdan decision, U.S. officials found to be responsible for subjecting war on terror detainees to torture, cruel treatment or other “outrages upon personal dignity” could face prison or even the death penalty.
Don’t expect that to happen anytime soon, of course. For prosecutions to occur, some federal prosecutor would have to issue an indictment. And in the Justice Department of Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales — who famously called the Geneva Convention “quaint” — a genuine investigation into administration violations of the War Crimes Act just ain’t gonna happen.
But as Yale law professor Jack Balkin concludes, it’s starting to look as if the Geneva Convention “is not so quaint after all.”
——————————————————————–
This is what happens when you think that the rules that have governed everyone for over 60 years no longer apply to you. Chilling article. Thoughtful and well stated.
Weren’t we supposed to be the good guys?
Gitmo Trials Illegal
The Supreme Court in an interesting 5 - 3 ruling stated that the Bush Administration had overstepped its bounds and that Military War Crimes trials violates the constituion and the Geneva Convention.
I can pretend to be a lawyer and discuss the technical aspects of this case. But it ends up sounding like a doctor trying to be a lawyer. Glen Greenwald gives a complete rundown on this decision.
Think Progress posted this -
Justice Breyer stated in today’s Hamdan opinion, “Nothing prevents the President from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary.” Reacting to Breyer, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said on Fox, “The court is telling us that tribunals would be okay if you have the Congress’ blessing.”
President Bush seems to be quickly embracing the idea.
As I understand, a senator has already been on TV — I haven’t seen it. I haven’t heard what he said, but they briefed me and said he wants to devise law in conformity with the case that would enable us to use a military tribunal to hold these people to account. And if that’s the case, we’ll work with him.
But if Bush truly wants to devise law in conformity with the opinion, the military commissions will need to undergo significant changes. Mere congressional authorization of the military commission that the Bush administration has conceived will not be enough to pass the legal test. Today’s Supreme Court opinion makes clear that a congressionally-authorized military commission would need to comply with Geneva Conventions, particularly Common Article 3. From the opinion:
Common Article 3, then, is applicable here and, as indicated above, requires that Hamdan be tried by a “regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”
…
The commentary accompanying a provision of the Fourth Geneva Convention, for example, defines “‘regularly constituted’” tribunals to include “ordinary military courts” and “definitely exclud[e] all special tribunals.
…
Common Article 3 obviously tolerates a great degree of flexibility in trying individuals captured during armed conflict; its requirements are general ones, crafted to accommodate a wide variety of legal systems. But requirements they are nonetheless. The commission that the President has convened to try Hamdan does not meet those requirements.
In other words, Bush’s military commissions need more than a rubber-stamp from Congress.
More later…
Supreme Court gives DeLay some support
In a 5-4 ruling the Supreme Court upheld portions of the re-districting plan in Texas. They did declare that a west Texas district was really painfully redrawn diluted the Latino vote and was unconstitutional. (This district will have to be redrawn and approved before the November election.) That is the only thing in the ruling that is clear to me. The rest of the ruling seems to be several different decisions that really don’t help to decide anything. Just to prove that concensus was lacking, 7 different opinions were written. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Il.) Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, “Every redistricting is a partisan political exercise, but this is going to put it at a level we have never seen. That’s the gift that the Supreme Court and Tom DeLay have given us.” Look for states to begin re-drawing districts left and right (pun intended).
I look forward to reading Glenn Greenwald’s take on this.
Filibuster? You bet!!
The question isn’t whether Alito has the brains to be on the Supreme Court. The question is whether he should be on the Supreme Court. With questions about presidential power, easesdropping, torture, and civil liberties at stake it is time for the Democratics to grow a pair and stand up. If you lose you lose but fight DAMN IT!
It is ironic that Alito’s testimony ended just before the MLK holiday. Civil Rights should have been the key question. Alito’s writings don’t seem to support civil rights at all. No affirmative action. No women’s rights. None.
Also, the 2 mining tradegies happened to come during this Alito time. Alito has sided with business against the little every time that he could.
NO. NO. NO!! Alito is replacing Sandra Day O’Conner. A moderate. We must fight against this extremely conservative appointment.
Clinton consulted with Congress and go a nominee with Republicans and Democrats could live with. Bush listened but didn’t hear the Democrats. He didn’t. He chose someone to please his base.
Fight. Dem’s fight.
More on Alito
Here are some questions that should be asked of Judge Alito.
The first kind asks for answers that offer a sense of a nominee’s thinking without committing that nominee to any future rulings. For instance:
Everyone seems to agree it’s wrong for judges to “legislate from the bench.” Give us two or three examples from the court’s past where, in your view, the court legislated from the bench.
Name two or three justices from the past whom you do not admire. Why not?
The Ninth Amendment says that the enumeration of certain rights [in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights] should not be held to disparage other rights… .” What does this mean?
Justice Scalia says that the court was wrong 80 years ago, when it began to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. Do you agree?
If a punishment — say, branding or flogging — was widely accepted at the time the Bill of Rights was written, could it be considered “cruel and unusual” today?
The second type of questions would give us a much broader sense of how a nominee thinks. For instance:
Favorite Beatle? (Paul means a right-brain view of things, John, a left-brain view. Ringo means outside the mainstream.)
Do you support the designated-hitter rule? (Yes means a pro-labor, pro-federalist outlook — different rules for different leagues.)
Beer or wine? (populist vs. elitist)
Marital exception — Halle Berry or Diane Lane? (Other answers acceptable, of course.)
-
Errington C. Thompson, MD, is a surgeon, scholar, fulltime sports fan and part-time political activist. He is active in a number of community projects and initiatives. Through medicine, he strives to improve the physical health of all he treats...
