The Jade Monkey

I didn't have a superiority complex until inferior people gave me one.

Name:
Location: San Antonio, Texas, United States

1.14.2005

"The Stakes Could Not Possibly Be Higher"

I completely agree with Powerline.

In my opinion, judicial activism, including the willingness to subjugate our Constitution to the dictates of foreign law, is the single greatest threat to our country - greater even then terrorism, because while terrorism can only kill people and knock down buildings, the meddling of judges constitutes a crisis of no less import than the ripping apart of the very fabric on which our nation was sewn - and any judge that cites foreign law in making decisions ought be immediately impeached.

Though this is certainly nothing new, and I've commented in passing on it before, Breyer's asinine statements make me too angry and ill to comment further at the moment.

ETA: I'm not sure how much good contacting the Judiciary Committee will do with Arlen "Scottish Law" Specter at the helm (yes, I know, I supported him, or at least saw the opposition as doing more harm than good, and I still stand by that assessment. This edit was more of a joke, as while what Specter did was a farce, it was ultimately inconsequential, and I don't think his "position" if such it is has much bearing on the nomination or confirmation of judges, especially with his pledge of loyalty exacted...I hope), but it certainly can't hurt.

3 Comments:

Blogger Unserious Talker said...

The pleasantries first: thanks for the blog rolling and I appreciate the comments.

Now to the point:

I take the position that judicial activism is best described as when judges rule against what you think is right. If you notice, lately there have been those on the left who are decrying "conservative activism" on the Supreme Court. Besides, judicial activism has been good, on occasion (Marbury v Madison was judicial activism, so was Brown v Board).

As far as the reliance on foriegn law, again, this is not something entirely new. In fact, the basis of our law is foriegn, it is the common law - part of our British history. In my time at law school I have read cases from across the Anglosphere in common law classes (Contracts, Torts and Criminal law especially come to mind).

Ok, I'm starting to rant... there will be more on my site tomorrow, or the next day, or whenever I get my thougths straight.

11:30 PM  
Blogger guest said...

Oh, I don't disagree with you in general. But to say that sometimes activism is good misses the point - that usually it is NOT, no matter which side it comes from. In my view, the judiciary should be the most conservative of the branches of government (not necessarily in the political sense, but in that it ought be the most reluctant to impose change), and certainly the least political, which activism tends to be, especially from the left, as the courts are its last recourse to implement an agenda against the will of the people that has rejected it. (And yes, we can decry tyranny of the majority, but surely tyranny of the minority is so much more to be decried).

And of course our law originated in foreign law; but again, to say that NOW our law should be dependent on the end product of a different strain from that seed (or from, in many cases, a different seed altogether) seems to me an odd proposition in the extreme.

6:17 PM  
Blogger Unserious Talker said...

Ok, got my thoughts together finally and just posted them over at my site - http://camafia.blogspot.com/2005/01/foreign-law.html

Hopefully, this makes a bit more sense then the comment above.

5:19 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home