| . . . Dred Scott? Ahhh, Relevance
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2004 1:09 PM
Yesterday's debate was a little odd to watch. I'm not sure I've been as annoyed by George Bush's mannerisms, what with head nods, the winking, the grimacing, the looks of shocked confusion (which if real were unsettling because nothing new was said and if not then it was pathetic pandering), and the desire to greatly interrupt people and not wait one's turn. John Kerry's "respect" of people's "feelings" was quite awkward.
As William Saletan noted Kerry could have done better and really didn't pounce when easy opportunities to do so were presented. I don't think either did himself a lot of favors. It wasn't as painful as 2000's town hall debate, but I was a little irritated that I could predict a number of answers and pick apart so many inaccuracies.
For fun I kept popping into Wonkette's hilarious real time coverage. I have to say that the moment that really popped out was that Dred Scott reference that a) made no sense, b) was
unnecessarily
esoteric, and c) was just stupid.
Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.
That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all -- you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America.
And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. We've got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law; judges interpret the Constitution.
And I suspect one of us will have a pick at the end of next year -- the next four years. And that's the kind of judge I'm going to put on there. No litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution.
And how they interpret the Constitution must be how he would interpret the Constitution which is, I'm sure, untainted by his personal opinions. Whatever. That slavery was wrong and property rights shouldn't apply to take away rights as human beings is a pretty non-controversial in this country, in this day and age. And I'm pretty sure no one John Kerry could appoint would (like the Taney Court) endorse a position as terrible as that underlying Dred Scott. Activist judges are judges who don't agree with you and strict constructions are judges who agree with you. But of all the examples of activist opinions, his number two example was from 1857? (The Ninth Circuit's 2002 Pledge of Allegiance decision being first.) Way to spot a runaway trend there.
UPDATE: Frolic and Detour's got some fancy opinions on this too. And Bloggystyle had "a semi-official transcript of some remarks and observations." Best part:
You may not agree with him, but Bush was a lot clearer and consise on abortion. And he's not giving anybody counseling. Or federal money. You're on your own, sluts.
SUNDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2004 5:46 PM
***
Election 2004 | 60 Days Until Election 2004 - Are You Ready? | 50 Days Until Election 2004 - Random Assortment of Links | 40 Days Until Election 2004 - Debates Are Coming | Finally! A Debate Drinking Game! | Vicki Liviakis Goes Down | 30 Days Until Election 2004 - C-SPAN Is My Favorite Channel | The One Where Everyone Pretends It Matters | Maybe I Should Just Move Back To Berkeley
comments? e-mail me. |