It’s apparently a forgone conclusion that Kagan will be voted on despite obligatory vocal opposition from Republicans. Her sense of humor in the hearings is refreshing considering how desert dry these things usually are. And it turns out the whole military recruiter at Harvard thing is not as cut and dried as her critics wanted, as if that specific item has any relation to how she’d vote on anything.
Has your opinion of her changed since she was first announced? Failed past nominee Robert Bork doesn’t like her. Do you now have an opinion on her, good or bad? Sound off!
#60, SL,
… and unorganized militia (all males 17 to 45 who are citizens, and females who are in the national guard)
An unorganized militia is not a “well regulated militia.” If your point was true then all males NOT 17-45 would be regulated in their ownership of firearms.
Your point on the face of the Navy changing is silly. The Constitution does not provide for a Navy, it provides for naval forces. See my #58 for the actual wording of the relevant section. It is the function of those naval forces that has remained consistent since the Constitution was accepted. The Militia, on the other hand, has changed and has been disbanded by legislation.
#58–Fusion==likewise, good to see you posting. A nice little sea squall here. Yes, I know the Navy is “authorized” in the Const but that language does not require the establishment/maintenance of the Navy. Its all done by Congress. As a navy is a natural instrument of commerce, I doubt the phrase is required at all. Just a “hot issue” of the day, a feel good provision.
#59–SL==I agree. A tangent can be quite pleasant when the conversation is good. A conversation about ideas? Always devolves into words and what they mean. Here, we (Benji and Greg actually) started with what the word “originalist” meant and we are actually backstreaming (you and I) to the idea of powers vs rights. I hope I can keep up but with Fusion’s help, I’m sure we can?
One of my favorite rhetorical subjects never yet addressed on this here blog is the notion of “natural rights.” Sounds good, but in pragmatic fact, after it gets going, after the government has an army to collect taxes, talk about natural rights is seditious. If it weren’t for the BOR spelling them out, enshrining them, what do you think the status of our natural rights would be? I shudder to think. Most commentors caution that an open Const Convention held today would not come forth with a BOR. Our kiddies should be warned about this.
We agree that the const & BOR should adapt to the conditions of the day. That is being activist though. If you ask our founding fathers if they meant for the navy to become iron clad, and then later to carry airplanes, they would have said “We just authorized a Navy==look to the congress to keep up with technology.” Not the same with the BOR. A nice conceptual box you place before us. Is that what I mean to do?
In fair analysis, I don’t see any difference whether rights are given by the Const/BOR, are god given, are natural, reside in the people, are open ended, or placed in a box.
All rights are inherently limited. Inherently limited by the other rights we have. The maximum application of all act to limit each and every one.
Where those lines are crafted is the unavoidable action of an activist court applying the values/morality of the day–in a rough fit over time. Is there any doubt at all that guns would be greatly restricted if they weren’t specifically named in the 2nd Amendment? And no doubt that over time they will become restricted. As the world becomes more crowded, my right to swing my fist becomes more restricted by your right not to have your nose broken. Its actually physics. Our natural rights in an an emptry frontier must by necessity be different than the very same right in a five story walkup. Changed again as we move to a vertical city contained in a single structure. Compression always creates heat, heat affects different rights. Generally reducing them per person as the total people multiple. Is the net amount of liberty the same? I don’t know other than the maximum personal freedom is found by one person alone on an island. From there, our freedoms go downhill. Again, its physics.
So, we are in conceptual disagreement on what reality requires. It matters little our mutual “respect” for the SCOTUS. Like gravity, the SCOTUS is what is going to happen whether we like it or not, till the revolution. And on balance, I can live with all the errors and lack of federalism and over application of the commerce clause that has been inflicted on us by the SCOTUS. FREEDOM==other people doing things I don’t like.
Childish to reject the best society on earth just because it isn’t perfect. Course, I would enjoy a few more open air bodega’s, but as much as I desire the same, I recognize that is a cultural flowering not yet planted in the USA, not a right, not a natural right. At least we have micro breweries and a few bakeries. Yes, civilization is on the march.
# 15 dusanmal:
“For me her lack of real qualifications and knowledge how to judge is enough to disqualify her. There are tens of thousands who are better qualified for this nomination than Kagan.”
Name six, please.
I hope she doesn’t make it. There will be Kagan posters on the wall over pedro’s bed.
She probably understands the law better than most judges who barely “get it”, during their public experience of practicing it. Heaven forbid we should keep having Presidents and Supreme Court judges, who taught the law to others. By all means, let’s appoint only those who thought law would be a great way to meet women. Duh!
First the news distorts the issue of Kagan refusing the military access to Harvard students. But turns out she only denied them the use of the campus Career Office. They still recruited students.
Those hearings are little more than grandstanding by Senators and Congressmen, who wish to appear able to decide who will make a good Supreme Court Judge. They didn’t use to have these hearings, decades ago. These clowns barely know how to run Congress. What makes them a good judge of candidates for this other branch of government, that they don’t run? If anyone should have the right to question these appointments. Perhaps it should be state governors or attorney generals. NOT a bunch of posturing politicians!