On Tuesday, Steven Calabresi of the Federalist Society, wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal. In it, he argues that the federal courts are teetering on the brink of absolute liberalism – no doubt a catastrophe in his mind. To illustrate this point, he misrepresents facts in an effort to perpetuate the myth that there is such a thing as a liberal and “activist” judiciary.
Mr. Calabresi accuses Democrats of waging an eight-year obstruction campaign against President Bush’s judicial nominees and suggests that, should one win the White House, “the balance will shift…on almost all of the…federal appeals courts.” We can only assume that this shift he refers to would be the courts swinging from almost entirely conservative to simply, a little less conservative.
In truth, ten of the 13 federal circuit courts of appeals have Republican-appointed majorities. Only one, the Ninth, has a majority of judges who were appointed by a Democrat. And as for Mr. Calabresi’s argument that come inauguration day, six of the nine Supreme Court justices will be over 70 – what he conveniently forgets to mention is that four of those six are the justices who make up the court’s liberal bloc.
If only it were as easy as Mr. Calabresi suggests to reverse the damage done to our federal judiciary by President Bush. Truth is, we have years of work ahead of us if we are to mitigate the consequences of his eight years of court packing.
3 comments:
The judiciary is not going ‘liberal’ (although I wish it was). It is in fact falling down conservative. Hopefully, Obama will be our next president, and he the opportunity to appoint MANY justices.
With Obama’s help, WE THE PEOPLE will retake our government. The executive, the legislative, and the judiciary. They all must be liberal, for the good of the nation.
Deliberate lies, anti=-conceptual appearance-level bigotries, and deliberately false conclusion mongering are dangerous practices where a Constitution is concerned. How much more so is this true where the entire philosophy of American liberalism versus neocon Republican neo-fascism is concerned. Liberal as a concept means "Concerned with the rights and freedoms of the individual as opposed to any collective". (Dictionary meaning., What could be clearer than that this is what our Founding Fathers intended? They had no agenda at the outset except to stand against infallibility-spouting pseudo-theocratic rule by a monarch.
Now we have a government of those who suppress rights, kill regulations and preach infallible leader pseudo-theocratic public-interest "lawmaking" (read dictate annunciating)--and dare to call such attitudes "patriotic, American, moral, ethical and legal. How disgusting, treasonable and absurd. Want to know where their idea of 'citizenship" leads? Their majority on the Supreme Court spelled this out less than three montths since. "Quote" "Single party complainants have no standing in the courts". This means the individual citizen, one who claims that a boss in the former marketplace of work and the attainment of idea-level leadership through realism now has no rights unless he/she commits professional suicide by joining a class action lawsuit requiring years, millions of dollars and ending in ostracism for the victim who dared complain in a line of work or industry against those committing acts of favoritism, injustice, bigotry, harassment, unequal pay, slander, misrepresentation, unprofessionalism, vindictive or coercive or fraudulent actions. Our legal bureaucracy like the ideas of our so-called liberal media are 85% neocon neo-fascist pro-=imperial presidency and tyrannical Eastblishment-over-the wage-slaves ideas. Simple proof: name a single movie since "American President" (1994) whose subject is a self-responsible moral-ethical; normative achieving anything by means of personal characteristics. It's called liberalism, stupid. And if there were such a bias, wouldn't someone be writing about it? If liberalism in law existed, wouldn't there be a trend toward regulating and defining individual rights into existence instead of their continual destruction for over 60 years? Grow up. We have to rid ourselves of these whining, pathologically lying excuse-making would-be tyrants or we can never apply science to the 3 marketplaces Madisonian of ideas and related actions in goods and services, work and idea-level leadership, elected and appointed government position gaining. Pretending that we have individual rights where zero exist is insane. Professing individual liberty exists and responsibility can be applied in such situation utter totalitarian nonsense, the opposite of conceptual truth. As a political idea of dictate-making preposterousness it is viciously immoral, unethical and pointless.
What a disgusting episode in an lifetime of mental increasing U.S. mental degeneracy. Next these lunatic arguments will be telling us that our media are liberal just because their weak-minded and idea-poor CEOs and slaves hate neocon fascists.
Anyone ever hear of collaborators, running dogs, apologists, fifth columnists, cowardly abettors,
frightened collaborator victims, willing slaves, deluded followers, "true believers", dupes, etc.?
Look around you. How many after the AIG disaster and Exxon=Mobil balance sheet profit for doing nothing at all are calling for a curb on CEO theft, corruption and totalitarianism? there's your answer. A house divided against itself cannot stand; minds of this inadequate caliber are those
who need to be confronted with the enormity of the guilt, and the cost of their Mccarthyist lying, false accusations and patrio-pathological criminal claims against honest responsible American citizens.
Deliberate lies, anti=-conceptual appearance-level bigotries, and deliberately false conclusion mongering are dangerous practices where a Constitution is concerned. How much more so is this true where the entire philosophy of American liberalism versus neocon Republican neo-fascism is concerned. Liberal as a concept means "Concerned with the rights and freedoms of the individual as opposed to any collective". (Dictionary meaning., What could be clearer than that this is what our Founding Fathers intended? They had no agenda at the outset except to stand against infallibility-spouting pseudo-theocratic rule by a monarch.
Now we have a government of those who suppress rights, kill regulations and preach infallible leader pseudo-theocratic public-interest "lawmaking" (read dictate annunciating)--and dare to call such attitudes "patriotic, American, moral, ethical and legal. How disgusting, treasonable and absurd. Want to know where their idea of 'citizenship" leads? Their majority on the Supreme Court spelled this out less than three montths since. "Quote" "Single party complainants have no standing in the courts". This means the individual citizen, one who claims that a boss in the former marketplace of work and the attainment of idea-level leadership through realism now has no rights unless he/she commits professional suicide by joining a class action lawsuit requiring years, millions of dollars and ending in ostracism for the victim who dared complain in a line of work or industry against those committing acts of favoritism, injustice, bigotry, harassment, unequal pay, slander, misrepresentation, unprofessionalism, vindictive or coercive or fraudulent actions. Our legal bureaucracy like the ideas of our so-called liberal media are 85% neocon neo-fascist pro-=imperial presidency and tyrannical Eastblishment-over-the wage-slaves ideas. Simple proof: name a single movie since "American President" (1994) whose subject is a self-responsible moral-ethical; normative achieving anything by means of personal characteristics. It's called liberalism, stupid. And if there were such a bias, wouldn't someone be writing about it? If liberalism in law existed, wouldn't there be a trend toward regulating and defining individual rights into existence instead of their continual destruction for over 60 years? Grow up. We have to rid ourselves of these whining, pathologically lying excuse-making would-be tyrants or we can never apply science to the 3 marketplaces Madisonian of ideas and related actions in goods and services, work and idea-level leadership, elected and appointed government position gaining. Pretending that we have individual rights where zero exist is insane. Professing individual liberty exists and responsibility can be applied in such situation utter totalitarian nonsense, the opposite of conceptual truth. As a political idea of dictate-making preposterousness it is viciously immoral, unethical and pointless.
What a disgusting episode in an lifetime of mental increasing U.S. mental degeneracy. Next these lunatic arguments will be telling us that our media are liberal just because their weak-minded and idea-poor CEOs and slaves hate neocon fascists.
Anyone ever hear of collaborators, running dogs, apologists, fifth columnists, cowardly abettors,
frightened collaborator victims, willing slaves, deluded followers, "true believers", dupes, etc.?
Look around you. How many after the AIG disaster and Exxon=Mobil balance sheet profit for doing nothing at all are calling for a curb on CEO theft, corruption and totalitarianism? there's your answer. A house divided against itself cannot stand; minds of this inadequate caliber are those
who need to be confronted with the enormity of the guilt, and the cost of their Mccarthyist lying, false accusations and patrio-pathological criminal claims against honest responsible American citizens.
Post a Comment