TheAgitator.com
Phew!
Saturday, October 9th, 2004President Bush last night, when asked what kind of judges he’d nominate to the Supreme Court:
Let me give you a couple of examples, I guess, of the kind of person I wouldn’t pick.I wouldn’t pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn’t be said in a school because it had the words “under God” in it. I think that’s an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.
Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.
That’s a personal opinion. That’s not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we’re all — you know, it doesn’t say that. It doesn’t speak to the equality of America.
Keep the pledge legal. Don’t bring back slavery.
Golly, he’s got my vote!
the dred scott case was not based on property rights, nor was it judicial activism.
It was actually based on the Constitution. Or rather, the pre-13th, 14th and 15th amendment Constitution. It may have gone too far—by treating all blacks as slaves, even in the north—but its core opinion was that earlier legislation (Missouri Compromise) was unconstitutional.
Now, of course, I don’t expect Bush to grasp these kinds of complexities, but his handlers should know better.
Also, that stupid joke he told about his timber company is going to make him look foolish. His personal income tax statement in fact reports $84, from a timber company, just like Kerry said (which was a great way to underscore Kerry’s point about how the Bush bill regards “small businesses”). This will come out today or tomorrow, and like Cheney’s utterly stupid lie about not meeting Edwards, will be flogged by the media. And rightly so. Doesn’t look too good to be a smartass when you’re factually incorrect.
Already hitting. Need some wood? Get some on the Internets!
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3845089354
And I agree that the Dred Scott case was a horrible reference. A third of the audience had no idea what he was talking about, another third was busy flashing back to whatever they remember from high school history class, and the remaining third sat there asking WTF?
And I love how strict constitutionalism is qualified by loopholes. Oxy, meet moron.
To be fair, I don’t think President Bush’s point was that he would never appoint a pro-slavery judge (as you point out, that’s obvious). Rather, his point was that he wouldn’t appoint a judge who elevated his personal wishes above the law–and he cited Dred Scott as an example of judges elevating their personal opinions above the law.
Come on, aren’t you even slightly relieved to hear he doesn’t agree with the Scott decision? Of course, he got it wrong anyway – it’s a lousy example for the point he was trying to make, as the beefcake blogger explains above.
God, I wish he was running against almost anyone other than Kerry – or vice versa.
I read somewhere else that “Dred Scott” is code for “Roe v Wade” in the same way that “states rights” is often code for segregation. If you google “Dred Scott abortion” you’ll see what I mean.
Any way you stack what Bush said, give me judges who judge based on the law, not their own, or popular opinion.
Lawmaking is for the legislative branch. And if they’re too cowardly to address a controversial issue, then we’ve achived what we deserve when we voted for the legislators in the first place.
See the problem with Dred Scott (in my small opinion) is that it was a case when the Supreme Court decided it was the appropriate power to solve a question dividing the country. A 54 page majority decision wasn’t needed to say “yes” or “no” – and thus further divided the country. I think the point is well taken – but at the same time I’m sorry but that case is so over-used I wish he’d just left it out.
It occurs to me that if President Bush really wanted to show his dedication to unbiased jurisprudence, he should have cited cases of judges ignoring the law in favor of policies that he sympathizes with.
Try to imagine him doing that.
GW thinks that anyone who is unbiased must agree with him. After all, he has truth on his side.
Well, first of all. Bush’s mention of “Dredd Scott” is code for “I will appoint judges that will repeal Roe v. Wade”. It only sounded incoherent because thinking people were not the intended audience.
A great many anti-abortionists like to think of their struggle as similar to the repeal of slavery with themselves in the role of the abolitionists.
To get there, they mis-read both their role and the reasons that Dredd Scott was wrongly decided. Dredd Scott was not a case of judges deciding a case wrongly because of they let their personal opinions overrule the clear text of the Constitution, but precisely the opposite.
A plain reading of the Constitution gives rights to all citizens, and the Justices who wrote Dredd Scott simply refused to see that, and instead denied him the right to sue.
Even so, if you are aware of the conversations going on indside of the anti-abortion movement, the reason for the president’s cite is clear; He’s promising to repeal Roe v. Wade, but in a way that’s intended to communicate only with the anti-choice people and to go over the heads of the pro-choice people.
It’s all well and good to say that you don’t want judges who interject their personal opinions into the law, but there are places where the Constitution leaves questions wide open to judicial interpretation.
The 14th Amendment is obviously notorious for such a thing: what is “equal protection of the laws”? What is “due process of law”? Does due process protect not only procedural rights but also substantive rights?
The Bill of Rights contains other examples: what is “speech”? What is “establishment”? What’s an “unreasonable search”? What are the rights retained by the people? What is “cruel and unusual punishment”?
These are all philosophical and moral questions, and they can’t be answered without refering to the philosophy of the judges behind it. What we should be pushing for is for judges who understand these terms so as to maximise individual liberty – economic, social, and political. Pushing for judges who have no opinion on these matters is contrary to the document itself.
- Josh
Kerry should have said he got the $84 from W.’s income tax statements which W. voluntarily gave to the public as did John Kerry.
Cut to the chase- I thought W. was going to bully and attack Gibson. I know now that W. was angry and upset and had to prove that, after being the bully and having had the crap beaten out of him the week before, he had to reassert his manhood. He didn’t do it. In fact, I conclude he is play acting as President, doesn’t want to be Presdient, and is scared to death he will be found out.
I also predict the following if he is elected:
1. The draft is coming boys and girls-the Army is worn out and not enough assets to come down the pipe for the Remaining Axis of Evil countries- Iran, North Korea, and Syria. We can NOT go it alone; I retired from the Navy so have a little idea of what “combat” is like.
2. The new Economic WMD- Depression. Can’t run a war, fund Social Security and Medicare, keep the highways repaired, keep education going, .. without income coming in. Didn’t work for LBJ or Ronald Reagan either. Anyone who passed Accounting 101 knows this.
This isn’t a good enough reason to support a team who voted against the Meals on Wheels program and a Martin Luther King holiday. Sorry. It’s just isn’t.
>I read somewhere else that “Dred
>Scott” is code for “Roe v Wade” in the
>same way that “states rights” is often
>code for segregation. If you
>google “Dred Scott abortion” you’ll
>see what I mean.
Dammit, they forgot to send me the new vast right wing conspiracy codebook again!
Dread Scott
A lot of folks are mocking the President for his reference to the Dread Scott case in the debate. But
Why have I not heard anyone comment on Bush standing up at the debate waving his arms and stating “We are doing the best we can!” Am I the only one who caught that? Or am I the only one bothered by it.
Belief in the truth and honor of George W. Bush is a mental disease. This disease begins in the brain grows there until it is impossible for the victim to make rational judgments. The only cure for this disease is removal of the person’s head from the hole which it is occupying in the ground. The removal process is very difficult and could lead to permanent shame — this is why the victim usually leaves their head in the ground, where it rots away leaving an unsightly stump. The good news is these stumps will be helpful in stem cell research when John Kerry is elected President of the United States.
Take your time to take a look at some relevant pages in the field of visit … Thanks!!!