Posted by
Zentrist on Thursday, May 28, 2009 1:03:10 AM
Take the Constitution: Our job, we are told, is to "understand the Law, read or interpret the law--as the Founders intended it to be read and interpreted." It is, by this dogma, the author's "intention" that is the be all and end all. Oh, and, by the way, if you are not on board with this "strict contructionist" method of reading and interpreting, then you're like...the most recent bogeyman, Sonia Sotomayor. The stupidity of this partisan game is really getting old. The radicals on the right are now promoting the ridiculous idea that this outstanding judge is going to "legislate from the bench" with her "feelings and preferences" as opposed to...the Law. With all due respect, she would not have passed the bar exam had she not learned something about THE LAW--and how it works! Not only did she pass it, she is now what Dick Morris called THE TRUCK. And this truck, barring something amazing, is headed for the Supreme Court. It is not going to be stopped. Nor should it be stopped.
This is almost personal with me. I had a very dogmatic teacher in college who insisted that "you have to understand the author, the text, as it understands itself." You've got to come to terms with the author's "intention." Fine--as a first step.
But you go on from there.
And, thank goodness, our American History has...gone on from there. And thank God--our literary criticism has also gone on from there. Finally, as we will see in the confirmation hearings, "understanding the text" is much more than this code language, "strict construction." This absurdity of a term has come to mean, for example, "affirmative action in all cases is bad."
As for the case involving Mr. Ricci, the New England fireman, I'm now told that Ms. Sotomayor's approach was or would be that "precedent" is in play. If so, "preferences" are so far from this that we are talking about a different galaxy. And yet the media is buzzing about this "radical," Judge Sotomayor, who puts her feelings into her rulings--over against the tried and true ways in which legal decisions are actually arrived at.
And in the highest court of the land, legal precedent will be part and parcel of any decision-making. Due process, moreover, will obviously be in the mix. This idea that even the most radical lawyer can arbitrarily impose his or her "feelings"--this is "just politics," and politics of the very worst kind in my opinion. More of the same. More of the stuff that Barack Obama ran against and, thank heavens, is now trying to do something about!
As Chris Matthews said the other night on Charlie Rose, "My gut is very conservative on certain issues." He mentioned issues like national security and patriotism and personal responsibility. To read a book like Rudy's, on leadership, and agree with most of it--well, that makes one a "conservative." Having said that, I must say that I simply cannot abide the "thinking" that attacks the obvious excellence of a John Roberts, a Sam Alito--or a Sonia Sotomayor. Both Biden and Obama had the right, maybe even the duty, to disagree with Roberts and Alito on certain things. But they were wrong in their approach to the extent that they let "partisanship" color their overall judgment regarding excellence. I watched Biden's encounter with Roberts. Talk about a mismatch! But again, that's "politics," a politics I find utterly disgusting. And now we get to get nauseated over the "politics" vis-a-vis another excellent nominee, the great lady from NYC.