On the other hand, if the Supreme Court issues a decision which is clearly inconsistent with what the text of the Constitution actually says, it is the right and duty of all citizens to recognize such a decision as illegitimate. To do otherwise would be to regard judicial edicts as superior to the Constitution, which would contravene the Constitution’s explicit statement that nothing is superior to it.”

Supercat, I’m sorry to write this, but everything you wrote is wrong.

Words are not self-interpreting. There are no objective definitions in human relations. There is only power. The subjective opinions of the powerful are the law. Nothing else.

The U.S. Constitution is undefined as far as you are concerned. You have no control over the opinions of the powerful.

The powerful have control over you. This is the source of your cognitive dissonance. You hold on to the brainwashing they installed in you in public school.

You still have some measure of control, though. Exercise it.

Too many people seem to think that the job of a judge is to make things be either constitutional or unconstitutional. It is not. If something is unconstitutional, it is not a judge that makes it so. It is the Constitution itself. Judges may sometimes help clarify issues that are somewhat obscure, but the people need to recognize for themselves the issues that are clear.

One of the standard rules of statutory construction is that judges are supposed to construe a statute such that it does not violate the constitution, if such a construction is possible. In a sense, the judge does determine the constitutionality of the statute in that case, generally by adopting a narrow reading of the statute.

This evidences (a) the presumption that the legislature would not enact an unconstitutional statute; and (b) the principle that statutes should be strictly construed against the government. Of course, if there is no possible way to read a statute as constitutional, the judge is obligated to rule it unconstitutional.

Q: How many legs does a horse have if five Supreme Court justices call a tail a “leg”?

A: Four.

If there are multiple reasonable, or even remotely-plausibly-reasonable interpretations of a law, and the Supreme Court picks one, its decision should be respected whether or not its selection is the most reasonable.

On the other hand, if the Supreme Court issues a decision which is clearly inconsistent with what the text of the Constitution actually says, it is the right and duty of all citizens to recognize such a decision as illegitimate. To do otherwise would be to regard judicial edicts as superior to the Constitution, which would contravene the Constitution’s explicit statement that nothing is superior to it.

Too many people seem to think that the job of a judge is to make things be either constitutional or unconstitutional. It is not. If something is unconstitutional, it is not a judge that makes it so. It is the Constitution itself. Judges may sometimes help clarify issues that are somewhat obscure, but the people need to recognize for themselves the issues that are clear.

Radley I am curious what you think about the SCOTUS decision that says evidence negligently obtained is still admissable?

Also haven’t seen any articles about the officer killed serving a warrant here in Dallas — worth looking into this one, a lot of discrepancies on both sides. Looks like the guy (arrested on capital murder charge) is probably guilty but that the police procedures also were not followed. Dep’t originally said they announced themselves as someone other than police, then changed their story a bit later saying they did in fact announce themselves.

The Senate should have exercised the advise and consent role more thoroughly and told Bybee that he was entitled to claim attorney-client privilege, but unless the President waived that and permitted him to answer the questions, he was not going to receive the Senate’s approval.

Given that the Senate has managed over the years not to approve any number of people who were otherwise qualified for far lesser reasons it seems they already whiffed on their shot at Bybee.

They not only took extreme positions; they were legally incompetent, failing to consider many of the most obvious counterarguments.

That’s an odd criticism, given that Ackerman failed to refute the most obvious counter-argument to his position in the piece. I find it even weirder that he thinks that a 35-year old lawyer should get a pass for shoddy legal work. Those opinions were not good, and I know plenty of 25-year old lawyers who could have done better.

I don’t know a lot about how the OLC is set up, but it seems that is a way for Ackerman to pin more on Bybee than he may be responsible for. If Bybee trusted his subordinates to do good work (and Yoo had very good credentials), then it seems Bybee is a lot less culpable than Ackerman believes. Does anyone know whether Bybee would have had to sign off on the memos?

As for Yoo teaching the first-year Con Law course, you’re teaching the cases, not whatever bizarre theories you might have. The reading of the Court’s cases is fairly uncontroversial (though there is obvious disagreement on whether they are right). Almost everyone agrees on what the Court has said, so his teaching that is not a problem.

Bybee’s determining what is and isn’t constitutional is also not likely to cause that much harm. In the first place, he’d have to get at least one other Judge to agree with him (in a 3-judge panel). In the second, there are still en banc hearings and Supreme Court appeals above him if he did screw something up. And again, even Ackerman admits that he has no idea what Bybee’s role was. For all we know, Yoo was shooting memos straight out without Ackerman’s approval (or even knowledge). Once the folks outside of OLC knew who their man was, why would they go anywhere else?

My guess is that Cutey Kouric was the first in line for the BO toy. Probably bought three and got on the stand-by list for the blow up doll.

The Constitution consists of words whose meanings must be interpreted. Someone must do the interpreting. The interpreters are chosen from the ruling class.

There are those who are upset that their interpretation of the Constitution does not hold sway. That is the price of supporting the U.S. Constitution — by upholding its validity, logically one must accept the ruling class’ prevailing interpretation of it.

In accepting that one’s candidate may lose an election, the individual who supports voting must accept as valid the actions of the opposing candidate once in office (assuming the State upholds their actions as lawfu). It’s about the democratic process, right?

By hacking at the branches, one condemns oneself to a life resembling a Greek myth on the order of Prometheus or Sisyphus.

Try striking the root.

http://www.strike-the-root.org

Now I have a mental picture of a fat Ann Coulter using the Obama toy…You’re evil, Radley…pure, concentrated, Time Bandit evil…