June 26, 2012

"The lefty-pundit claim that [invaidating the individual mandate] would delegitimize the Court [is] risible."

Says Instapundit, pointing to this poll that says most people would be happy to see the Court strike down the law and saying it's Congress and President Obama who should be seen as "delegitimized" because of the way they "rammed it through using shady procedures in the teeth of popular opposition." And tweaking lawprof Akhil Amar for his life-is-a-fraud hyperventilating.

Also, earlier today, Instapundit linked to my response to to Jonathan Turley's personal attack on me. Turley couldn't take my criticism of his Court-packing plan, and Instapundit had his own (amusing) Court-packing plan: Let's have term limits (18-years) and a requirement that no more than 5 of the 9 to be law school graduates.

35 comments:

Methadras said...

Every representative who voted for this monstrosity should be delegitimized and found risible. Nancy "We should pass it before we know what's in it" Pelosi and Harry Reid should be flogged for what they've done to this country.

edutcher said...

I'm all for term limits, but the real issue here is that the Lefties can't believe nobody likes their plot to take over the maintenance of everybody's health.

leslyn said...

Turley couldn't take my criticism of his Court-packing plan

What, Turley is supposed to lie down for YOU? You either didn't read his rebuttal, or you dismiss it as being weak because it doesn't have the gleeful malice you have.

Coketown said...

Do you find it wwwisible when I say the phrase, "the Woberts Court lost all wespect by wuling against the individual mandate"?

I can't hear the word risible without thinking of that.

Bob Ellison said...

Why "(amusing)"?

The Godfather said...

With all due respect to Glenn Reynolds, conservatives shouldn't promote the notion that Supreme Court justices should not have to be lawyers. That buys into the idea that the Court is a policy making body, which is NOT what it's supposed to be. What we should try to do is return the Court to its role as a court. That is what Chief Justice Roberts seems to be trying to do, and we should commend him for that and encourage President Romney to appoint more justices like him.

The Godfather said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alex said...

What, Turley is supposed to lie down for YOU? You either didn't read his rebuttal, or you dismiss it as being weak because it doesn't have the gleeful malice you have.

Please someone call the Whambulance, we have another victim.

Bob Ellison said...

The Godfather wrote "...the idea that the Court is a policy making body, which is NOT what it's supposed to be."

Conservatives frequently comment that liberals see humans not for what they are, but for what they wish they could become. Similarly, some see the SCOTUS not for what it is, but for what it is supposed to be.

Alas, it is not that. It is a political body. Those justices try, and they do a pretty good job, but for gosh sakes, they tend to be darned predictable on political grounds, not on the logic and philosophy that is supposed to govern law.

William said...

There are fair arguments to be made for term limits. Many Court clerks have remarked that the drool stains make the papers of the Justices almost unreadable. Term limits will return the Senate to its rightful place as the most exclusive old age home in America.

Revenant said...

You either didn't read his rebuttal

A rebuttal is a response to another person's argument.

I'm not sure what you call it when the person is "responding" to something the other person didn't say.

bagoh20 said...

I think this is what they call a "cat fight".

traditionalguy said...

So after challenging Wisconsin Althouse to a duel with word sabers, Turley suddenly found that he could no longer turn his head.

While being rushed to the hospital holding his head, Turley was heard to remark, "Boy was she sharp and quick. What gets into those Madison, Wisconsin farm girls?"

Michael K said...

"conservatives shouldn't promote the notion that Supreme Court justices should not have to be lawyers. "

Not all Supreme Court Justices have been lawyers. The early ones had often read law but the legal profession was not as organized as it was this century.

Not all supreme court justices had been judges, though. Notable examples are John Marshall, William Rehnquist, and Earl Warren.

madAsHell said...

I'm not a lawyer, but if the supreme court doesn't invalidate Obamacare, then why do we employ them??

The 14th admendment makes all laws constitutional.

leslyn said...

Althouse is not "Madison," nor "Wisconsin," nor a "farm girl."

If she were, she'd probably be fatter, but nicer.

leslyn said...

madAsHell said...

"I'm not a lawyer, but if the supreme court doesn't invalidate Obamacare, then why do we employ them??

"The 14th admendment makes all laws constitutional."

I'm not MadasHell, so can anyone explain to me how this makes sense?

wyo sis said...

A cat fight implies two cats. Ann is a mama grizzly on steroids.

Revenant said...

I'm not MadasHell, so can anyone explain to me how this makes sense?

Dunno what the second sentence meant, but the first is presumably a reference to the fact that upholding ObamaCare would require discarding the concept of enumerated powers for Congress.

leslyn said...

wyo sis,

Sarah Palin will not be happy to hear she's been outranked.

wyo sis said...

Now that would be an interesting fight!

leslyn said...

Pay money to see that.

Popcorn, anyone?

Jacques Cuze said...

"Also, earlier today, Instapundit linked to my response to to Jonathan Turley's personal attack on me. "

Yeah Ann, very nice typical feminist response.

You attack a man, you deny it, and then call yourself the true victim and you plead for others to bail you out because of your breasts.

Once again we see a woman making false accusations against a man.

What a dishonest hypocrite.

Saint Croix said...

Can I just say, based on the length of the two or three or four Turley posts, that 19 jurists would (easily!) double the amount of verbiage in a frickin' Supreme Court opinion. Everybody would want to speak. Feuds would break out. And cliques! Your dissent's not good enough, I need to dissent, too! Oh yeah? Well I need to concur! And blah blah blah. And blah blah blah.

I don't think the Amazon rain forest can handle the tree loss involved with 19 Justices. They are already frickin' windbags. Turley himself is a windbag extraordinaire. And Althouse, who is usually the spirit of brevity, gets sucked into Turley-inspired windbaggery! You think more windbags will make for sharper, more defined arguments? Ha!

More like a nefarious scheme to make us all insane! To make our law unreadable! With the damn concurrences and the "I concur to part II and dissent to part III" nonsense that we'll get from 12 Justices, each of whom has an original jurisprudence that's not like anybody else's. Oh the insanity!

Holy crap is that a bad idea.

tim in vermont said...

J'accuse,
You make an argument that would be pretty devastating if you could only back it up with some evidence, a couple of cut and pastes from the posts in question will do fine.

Nathan Alexander said...

Alas, it is not that. It is a political body. Those justices try, and they do a pretty good job, but for gosh sakes, they tend to be darned predictable on political grounds, not on the logic and philosophy that is supposed to govern law.

I don't know if I would characterize the Supreme Court as a political body.

Rather, I would say that a person's worldview equally informs/pervades their gut reactions and reasoned/considered opinions.

If you think that people are basically simple and govt is the best way to resolve all problems, you are going to favor liberal-leaning rulings, and you will continue to lean liberal after becoming a SC Justice.

But if you believe that people, as a group, are incredibly complex and no govt can do as good of a job as moderating behavior as society itself, the marketplace of ideas, and a free economy, you will tend to favor smaller govt, market solutions, and lean right even after becoming a SC Justice.

Your philosophy and approach to life informs your politics which determines your rulings.

Correlation, not causation, in other words.

Fen said...

You attack a man, you deny it, and then call yourself the true victim and you plead for others to bail you out because of your breasts.

She attacked his premise, not his character.

Peter said...

If justifying a decision on the basis that the justices could see "emanations from penumbras" of the text didn't delegitimize the Court, then finding that the Commerce Clause is not infinitely elastic (and therefore cannot justify unlimited federal power) will surely not do so.

In any case, SCOTUS has been deligitmized for some time. The evidence being that no one pays much attention to the reasoning behind decisions anymore; all that matters is the result.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I'm for term limits or at least an age limit. It is a very rare human that can keep as mentally sharp and physically active at the age of 80 ...hell even 75... that the work of a Supreme Court Justice requires.

It would be a huge mistake to have Justices that are not trained in the law. To have lay people on the Supreme Court would definitely make it a less judicial and more emotional institution. We already have chaos in the Senate and the House, where the non lawyerly types should be.

The Supreme Court just needs to get out more and mingle with "the people". Maybe throw some tapas parties or something (joking about the party)

Dust Bunny Queen said...

"You either didn't read his rebuttal"

A rebuttal is a response to another person's argument.

I'm not sure what you call it when the person is "responding" to something the other person didn't say.


Talking to a liberal.

Steve Koch said...

Of course lefties want there to be no constitutional limits to the power of the fed gov. They are ok with the feds pushing us around and are too stupid/ignorant/corrupt/power hungry to understand that a too powerful fed gov is, by far, the biggest threat to our liberty.

Reforming the judiciary is an enormous challenge. We can imagine, design and construct amazingly complex systems that work great but we have not been able to improve ourselves, especially wrt judgement and morality. Humans are innately greedy, corrupt, prone to mistakes, and power hungry. Like the hobbit's ring, judicial power corrupts judges. Compounding this problem is the fact that judges are lawyers, surely our most contemptible, venal, corrupt, incompetent, and stupid group of professionals. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

We have to recognize the profound problems that our legal system has and take a fresh start. Step one is to recognize that humans, especially lawyers, are just not up to the job of being a competent and just justice. It just isn't working. We have to construct a legal system that depends as little as possible on the integrity and competence of individuals. We have to take a scientific/engineering approach to our legal system.

leslyn said...

Steve Koch:

Robots!

Jay said...

When a 5-to-4 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey was delivered the left was all concerned about the "legitimacy" of the Supreme Court, correct?

Methadras said...

Revenant said...

I'm not sure what you call it when the person is "responding" to something the other person didn't say.


Speculatory argumentation?

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Talking to a liberal.

Without liberals you'd still be the subject of a king, you silly robot-person!