This one's a guy who thinks federal management of public lands is like "the tyrannical actions of King George in levying taxes" on American colonists.
He's also against any environmental regulation.
When he was in office at the interior department, he tried to undermine a court ruling that had been upheld by the Supreme Court 9-0.
He also expressly violated (or as, the judge put it during the judgement on the lawsuit that resulted, "misconstrued the clear mandate") the Federal Lands Policy Management Act, which as a law he was sworn to uphold.
He did not receive a single "well-qualified" rating from the ABA's judicial advisement committee, and more than one third of its members called him "not qualified".
Clearly Bush is out to choose the best and most fair minded judges who would never make law from the bench, for instance by ignoring existing laws (as this guy did while a bureaucrat).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:MORGAN CITY, La. (AP) — A duck hunting trip Vice President Dick Cheney took with Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia last month has raised questions about a possible conflict of interest because Scalia was hearing a case involving Cheney at the time of the hunt.
The legal expert quoted says it's an "easy call" for Scalia to withdraw from hearing this case.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:He did not receive a single "well-qualified" rating from the ABA's judicial advisement committee, and more than one third of its members called him "not qualified".
Considering Estrada got the highest ratings from this committee, do the people opposing Bush's nominations really care about its decisions?
posted
The ABA rating refers to qualification to be a judge in terms of experience, with very little concern given to anything else. It does not attempt to judge bias, for instance. A judge with a life on a low bench who routinely sentenced blacks to years extra in jail and used racist language in his opinions could theoretically get a high rating by the ABA.
In other words, you should understand how meaningless what you just asked was.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:fugu13 said: The ABA rating refers to qualification to be a judge in terms of experience, with very little concern given to anything else. It does not attempt to judge bias, for instance. A judge with a life on a low bench who routinely sentenced blacks to years extra in jail and used racist language in his opinions could theoretically get a high rating by the ABA.
In other words, you should understand how meaningless what you just asked was.
How is it meaningless to question the use of a criterion that is ignored and trumpeted based on the rhetorical needs of the moment? And you should get your facts straight before you post.
"In investigating judicial temperament, the Committee considers the nominee's compassion, decisiveness, open-mindedness, courtesy, patience, freedom from bias and commitment to equal justice under the law."
If a judge sentences disporportionately, it will be brought to the committee's atttention by community leaders:
"The circuit member examines the legal writing of the nominee and personally conducts extensive confidential interviews with those likely to have information regarding the integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament of the nominee, including, where pertinent, federal and state judges, practicing lawyers in both private and government service, law school professors and deans, legal services and public interest lawyers, representatives of professional legal organizations, community leaders and others who are in a position to evaluate the nominee's integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament."
The investigation will look at court proceedings if needed, which will uncover racist language:
"In other cases, conflicting evaluations of professional competence may be received, or questions may arise regarding the nominee's integrity or temperament. In those instances, the circuit member takes whatever further steps are necessary to reach a fair and accurate assessment of the nominee. This may involve a large number of interviews as well as the examination of transcripts and other relevant records."
Really, how long would it have taken to find this out before you posted?
posted
So you do consider the ABA's rating a meaningful determination of such bias.
::relaxed smiley::
I should have been clearer, the ABA makes no effort to judge legally permissible ideological biases. Yes, such a racist judge could theoretically get a high rating, especially if those of his racist language decisions were at least fifteen years past and he had at least a few cases where he was lenient on black people to point at.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've always considered the ABA ratings meaningful. Never said I didn't. I'm also not particularly fond of federal officials who neglect ministerial duties. I'm not even sure if I support this guy or not since I didn't register on the site so couldn't read the whole article.
If a judge had racist language in a decision, 15 years old or not, I doubt he would get a "qualified" rating, let alone "most qualified."
As for ideological biases, please don't pretend the Estrada nomination fight was about those. More conservative judges than Estrada have been confirmed by this Congress. The Dems opposed Estrada because they knew it would be impossible to oppose his eventual promotion to the Supreme Court from the DC Circuit, due to his Hispanic heritage.
posted
Ultimately, that is a question of ideological differences.
And I can't say I don't see the reasoning; the SC is already a very conservative court with 2-3 moderates and 2-3 liberals, depending on how you count them. Another conservative would significantly sway the court, and cause the conservatives to be able to obtain decisions without relying on persuading one of the moderates or liberals.
However, Estrada should have been appointed, I think. It made sense politically to put it off for a while so that any rapid appointment to the SC intent would be curtailed, but he should have gotten the position. Of course, I rather suspect in Estrada's case he might have surprised people. He's not an ideologue in the same way Scalia is, or a lackey like Thomas.
You're probably right a judge such as that couldn't get a qualified. A lawyer almost certainly could, though, as he always has his advocate status to hide behind.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
True about the lawyer hiding behind his advocate role, although a lawyer has little chance of getting a circuit court appointment direcly without a lot of academic publishing to back him up.
Thomas is far from a lackey. Too often people see "Thomas joined in the dissenting opinion by Scalia" and think he's some kind of lapdog. You need to read some of his concurrances and dissents to see where he's coming from.
Now, he happens to have similiar interpretational theories as Scalia, which is hardly surprising considering who nominated each. But he decides based on his opinion, not Scalia's.
My favorite is Kennedy, because he wrote the majority opinion in my own case.
posted
I don't think he's Scalia's lackey, I think he's a general lackey. I'm not sure of exactly how to clarify the distinction, except to say I think Thomas will always do what he thinks is right, and argue it in a principled and well thought out way, but that everything he thinks is right has been voiced similarly before by others.
He is not an ideologue as Scalia is; Scalia's decisions bend towards his ideology. Thomas's decisions bend towards the existing practice of his ideology (which is in many ways a good ideology). Its a subtle distinction, but when talking about the supreme court justices, who are all very intelligent and thoughtful people, most distinctions in method of approach are subtle.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You say Thomas is a general lackey because:
quote: I think Thomas will always do what he thinks is right, and argue it in a principled and well thought out way, but that everything he thinks is right has been voiced similarly before by others.
A lackey is:
quote: from dictionary.com 1. A liveried male servant; a footman. 2. A servile follower; a toady.
I think you have some sort of axe to grind with Thomas. Yet I would argue that your claim "everything he thinks is right has been voiced similarly before by others" applies to all justices of the supreme court. Should he believe something because no one before him has held that belief? What is your exact complaint against the man?
posted
As I've pointed out already, Robespierre, distinctions on the supreme court are going to be subtle.
And yes, almost every opinion held by a supreme court justice will have been voiced by someone before. However, I don't see any of the others as constitutionally (heh, now there's a double meaning) opposed to creating a new opinion. I think Thomas is. I'd say I disagree with most of what he says, but I hardly have an axe to grind. If you'll look above, my use of the word lackey was to distinguish him from Estrada and Scalia in how he behaves. Furthermore, I praise several aspects of Thomas's decisions, or did you just ignore that?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Furthermore, I praise several aspects of Thomas's decisions, or did you just ignore that?
You call him a lackey.
Then you say:
quote: I think Thomas will always do what he thinks is right, and argue it in a principled and well thought out way
Can a lackey always do what he thinks is right, and argue it in a pricipled and well thought out way? You are self-contradictory.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think he's Scalia's lackey, I think he's a general lackey. I'm not sure of exactly how to clarify the distinction, except to say I think Thomas will always do what he thinks is right, and argue it in a principled and well thought out way, but that everything he thinks is right has been voiced similarly before by others.
Fair enough (I might still quibble with "lackey" but it wuld only be a quibble). But you'd have to change "everything" to "most things" to be truly accurate. See his opinion in the cross burning case, for example.
posted
Yes, a lackey can. Language is imprecise. I was attempting to fit a complicated concept to a single word and didn't do a perfect job; this does not mean I contradict myself. I can provide definitions of lackey from the OED that are compatible with my use of the word, besides. Just because your limited dictionary is overly specific doesn't mean all others are. For instance, a lackey is one who attends closely upon. Which Thomas certainly does. Perhaps you need to expand your vocabulary some?
Also, its important to understand that I do not see Thomas as an ideologue (which I get the impression you still think I think). I would call Thomas, if I had to invent a term, an ideological traditionalist. Not an ideologue.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
I think if anything Thomas's dissent in Virginia v. Black illustrates the sort of decision making process I am talking about. His perspective is completely rooted in a historical view of racist flag burnings, in context as a method of oppression and an act of conduct, rather than a method of expression and an act of speech.
I'm still digesting a lot of it, but that seems to hold true all through the dissent. I like his opinion.
Here's another way of perhaps clarifying my perspective on Thomas: I think most people, including the other justices on the SC, view the present as something that will become part of history. I think Thomas views the present as an extension of history.
quote: For instance, a lackey is one who attends closely upon. Which Thomas certainly does. Perhaps you need to expand your vocabulary some?
Yeah, I guess I totally missed the definition of lackey that applies to someone who:
quote: will always do what he thinks is right, and argue it in a principled and well thought out way
I guess if you define any word broadly enough you can call anybody anything and be right. Perhaps the fault is yours, in either picking a word that didn't properly represent your thoughts or mis-stating your compliments.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps you missed where I said it was far from the perfect word? And the definition of lackey I pointed out, which appears in one of the most authoritative dictionaries available, clearly is compatible with one being a lackey, and even with my more elaborate description of Thomas. To choose another phrase, I would call Thomas a lackey of history.
As for the specific phrases you enjoy so to harp upon, a lackey certainly can do what he believes is right, even a lackey in the most traditional sense. For instance, if one believes that following a particular person's orders is right, one might well be their lackey and still do what he thinks is right. Your logic is not impressive.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Back track all you like. You made your opinion of Thomas known. Don't try to play it off like you didn't mean to insult him. The words you use have meanings and connotations. If you choose to use words which obscure, rather than clarify your meaning, you are at best, not a good communicator.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was just my expression of amusement at how you decided to just start ignoring my points about your lack of logic and work instead on the angle of having an agenda against Thomas, when I had just praised a particular decision of his.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Not too often – at the law school, someone pretty much always makes interesting legal news known, so I jut rely on that for keeping up with new case law. I’ve gone to it when linked from here, though. I’ve got no shortage of law-related reading to keep me busy.
Hadn’t seen the hemp story yet, though.
quote:Here's another way of perhaps clarifying my perspective on Thomas: I think most people, including the other justices on the SC, view the present as something that will become part of history. I think Thomas views the present as an extension of history.
Interesting. I’ll have to think about whether I find that to be a fair categorization. It’s fun looking for patterns by the justices; few are easily categorized.
For example, the two cases we’ve read in Criminal Investigation so far that have struck down police searched as unreasonable have been written by Scalia. You think if he’s on the majority striking down a particular police tactic they automatically let him write it to give him credibility?
The other interesting thing about Scalia is that he and Bader-Ginsburg are good friends. I’m guessing they don’t talk about cases over dinner…
posted
Also, he probably requests such cases because they're interesting to him. I get the impression the supreme court generally gets along pretty amicably despite extensive arguing on judicial matters.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
