Comments on: NYT Sotomayor 'Analysis' = What Republicans Are Thinking http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/07/17/nyt-sotomayor-analysis-what-republicans-are-thinking/ The national media watch group Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:31:47 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2 hourly 1 By: July 2009 « Questionable Content http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/07/17/nyt-sotomayor-analysis-what-republicans-are-thinking/comment-page-1/#comment-40424 July 2009 « Questionable Content Sat, 11 Sep 2010 01:23:57 +0000 http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=11097#comment-40424 [...] http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/07/17/nyt-sotomayor-analysis-what-republicans-are-thinking/ . [...] [...] http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/07/17/nyt-sotomayor-analysis-what-republicans-are-thinking/ . [...]

]]> By: Paul Diamond http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/07/17/nyt-sotomayor-analysis-what-republicans-are-thinking/comment-page-1/#comment-6927 Paul Diamond Sat, 18 Jul 2009 20:52:45 +0000 http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=11097#comment-6927 It amazes me how little people understand about the role of federal judges. Particularly right wing conservatives. The current crop of Supreme Court Justices, dominated by George Bush's appointees, have ruled that states can deny minorities, elderly, and poor their right to vote with impunity. They have ruled that in spite of the 8th Amendment it is acceptable to execute prisoners in an extremely cruel and painful fashion. They have also ruled that employers can discriminate against women as long as the discrimination is kept secret for the first 6 months. They have ruled that despite the lack of a regulated militias in this 21st century, high crime era where guns kill more people than heart disease, it is permissable for anyone to have any kind of a gun. This is legislating from the bench in a way that is detrimental to the majority of Americans. However, according to many conservative citizens that form of judicial activism is perfectly acceptable. A great deal has been said for and against Supreme Court Judges. The Constitution of the United States was established in 1787, more than 230 years ago. There have been a great many changes in the last 230 years. Changes in society, changes in culture, changes in business, changes in technology. There have been more changes in the last two centuries than there have been in the last two millenia. Thomas Jefferson suggested that the Constitution should be regularly revisited, and expressed his concern that if it were not, and society were rigidly maintained as it were in 1787 when the Constitution was written, society would crumble; an oligarchy of, by, and for "the rich" would arise and increase the public debt for their own enrichment; the middle class would be destroyed; and Americans would become mere "automatons of misery."Sound familiar? The Framers of our Constitution "...to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."(Preamble to the Constitution) tried their best to anticipate the changes that the future would hold. However, they built in two mechanisms to deal with those changes they could not anticipate. The process for amending the Constitution of the United States and the Federal Judicial System as established by Article III of the Constitution. The Judges of the Federal Courts, up to and including the the final and ultimate court of appeals the Supreme Court of the United States, are charged with interpreting the law in terms of the Constitution, the law and legal precedent. However, the law and the Constitution does not exist in a vacuum. The law and the Constitution exists within a social, cultural, business and technological framework. Those are the things that bring people to court. To answer how the law applies to the circumstances they face today, in the present, brought on by those changes. To say that the law is applied in the same way in the 21st century as it was in the 18th century is to say that farmers should be plowing a field behind a team of oxen, all products should be made by hand by a single craftsman, women should be the property of their husbands, people should walk, or ride their horses, to work and women should be washing clothes by the stream with a rock. RIIIGGHHHT! It amazes me how little people understand about the role of federal judges. Particularly right wing conservatives.
The current crop of Supreme Court Justices, dominated by George Bush's appointees, have ruled that states can deny minorities, elderly, and poor their right to vote with impunity. They have ruled that in spite of the 8th Amendment it is acceptable to execute prisoners in an extremely cruel and painful fashion. They have also ruled that employers can discriminate against women as long as the discrimination is kept secret for the first 6 months. They have ruled that despite the lack of a regulated militias in this 21st century, high crime era where guns kill more people than heart disease, it is permissable for anyone to have any kind of a gun. This is legislating from the bench in a way that is detrimental to the majority of Americans. However, according to many conservative citizens that form of judicial activism is perfectly acceptable.
A great deal has been said for and against Supreme Court Judges. The Constitution of the United States was established in 1787, more than 230 years ago. There have been a great many changes in the last 230 years. Changes in society, changes in culture, changes in business, changes in technology. There have been more changes in the last two centuries than there have been in the last two millenia.
Thomas Jefferson suggested that the Constitution should be regularly revisited, and expressed his concern that if it were not, and society were rigidly maintained as it were in 1787 when the Constitution was written, society would crumble; an oligarchy of, by, and for "the rich" would arise and increase the public debt for their own enrichment; the middle class would be destroyed; and Americans would become mere "automatons of misery."Sound familiar?
The Framers of our Constitution "…to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…"(Preamble to the Constitution) tried their best to anticipate the changes that the future would hold. However, they built in two mechanisms to deal with those changes they could not anticipate. The process for amending the Constitution of the United States and the Federal Judicial System as established by Article III of the Constitution.
The Judges of the Federal Courts, up to and including the the final and ultimate court of appeals the Supreme Court of the United States, are charged with interpreting the law in terms of the Constitution, the law and legal precedent. However, the law and the Constitution does not exist in a vacuum. The law and the Constitution exists within a social, cultural, business and technological framework. Those are the things that bring people to court. To answer how the law applies to the circumstances they face today, in the present, brought on by those changes.
To say that the law is applied in the same way in the 21st century as it was in the 18th century is to say that farmers should be plowing a field behind a team of oxen, all products should be made by hand by a single craftsman, women should be the property of their husbands, people should walk, or ride their horses, to work and women should be washing clothes by the stream with a rock. RIIIGGHHHT!

]]> By: Doug Latimer http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/07/17/nyt-sotomayor-analysis-what-republicans-are-thinking/comment-page-1/#comment-6904 Doug Latimer Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:45:36 +0000 http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=11097#comment-6904 Would that he were, Eli ... would that he were. But do you really think these bastards do believe that? I think about growing up in the South, and the difference between George Wallace and Ross Barnett. Both were racists, but I don't think Wallace believed the horseshit he spewed about blacks - as witnessed by his later attempts to woo them. Barnett, I think, was a true believer - so filled with hate that he was incapable of discerning reality. In the end, of course, it makes no practical difference whether you believe your own propaganda - the effects are the same for "the other", aren't they? But I don't think most Republican pols believe their "socialist" (having replaced "commie" as the most baleful epithet in American politics) rhetoric, any more that Limbaugh or O'Reilly do. They know full well that Obama and nearly every other Democratic officeholder fully subscribe to the basic tenets of the power structure in this country. That's an overbroad statement to some degree, but what it essentially comes down to is, "Ye shall know them by their fruits." And mostly what we've gotten is pretty rotten, isn't it? Would that he were, Eli … would that he were.

But do you really think these bastards do believe that? I think about growing up in the South, and the difference between George Wallace and Ross Barnett.

Both were racists, but I don't think Wallace believed the horseshit he spewed about blacks – as witnessed by his later attempts to woo them.

Barnett, I think, was a true believer – so filled with hate that he was incapable of discerning reality.

In the end, of course, it makes no practical difference whether you believe your own propaganda – the effects are the same for "the other", aren't they?

But I don't think most Republican pols believe their "socialist" (having replaced "commie" as the most baleful epithet in American politics) rhetoric, any more that Limbaugh or O'Reilly do. They know full well that Obama and nearly every other Democratic officeholder fully subscribe to the basic tenets of the power structure in this country.

That's an overbroad statement to some degree, but what it essentially comes down to is, "Ye shall know them by their fruits."

And mostly what we've gotten is pretty rotten, isn't it?

]]> By: Eli Stephens http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/07/17/nyt-sotomayor-analysis-what-republicans-are-thinking/comment-page-1/#comment-6832 Eli Stephens Sat, 18 Jul 2009 01:32:44 +0000 http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=11097#comment-6832 Well, I don't think it was likely, Doug, but I'm certain the Republicans (the ones who already think Obama is a socialist) do. Well, I don't think it was likely, Doug, but I'm certain the Republicans (the ones who already think Obama is a socialist) do.

]]>