Monday, July 27, 2009

F#ing Republican Morrons

I don't mind the fact that conservatives are opposing Sonya Sotomayor's appointment to the Supreme Court. That's what they are supposed to do. I hae a few problems with their infusion of political ideology into what should, ideally, be a non-ideological discussion. But that's a minor quibble. The senate gets to confirm appointees to the bench, and its the right of every senator to vote yay or nay for whatever reason (barring selling their vote) they see fit. And it's not like the democrats never played politics with Supreme Court appointments.

No, here is what I have a problem with: they are morons.

Ok, maybe I'm being too harsh. Maybe the Republicans are not morons. Maybe they are just bald-faced lying to the American people in order to score political points with their rabid base.

An article in the AP today proves my point. It's full of stupid blather by republicans on the judiciary like Jeff Sessions. Stupid blather like the following:

Sotomayor's speeches represent a "dramatic expressions of an activist view of judging." (Jim Sessions)

Chuck Grassly says he's not sure she understands the rights Americans have under the constitution, and that some of her rulings sidestepped constitutional issues and ignored bedrock principles.

Mike Johanns says he's troubled by Sotomayor's stance on gun rights. Well, ok: so am I. But that not enough to prompt me to oppose her.

Sessions is an ass. Nobody who reads Sotomayor's famous "Wise Latina" comment could take it as activist. Sessions is also a racist himself: his own confirmation hearings were torpedoed by racist statements he admitted to and did not retract. And he's a hypocrite, since after he was denied a seat on the bench he criticized exactly the type of partisanship in judicial appointments that he is now engaging in. And if Sessions is so concerned about activism on the bench, why isn't he up in arms over Antonin Scalia, the most activist justice we've had in my lifetime? Might it be because he agrees with Scalia's politics? Judicial Activism is just code for "I don't like their politics?"

As for Grassly's comments would that be principles such as "Stare Decis," the principle that past rulings should be left to stand? Grassly seems to be worried that she'll ignore precedent in regards to DC v. Heller (to name one example) but he desperately wants the court to ignore and overturn Roe v. Wade. Hyporcite. And what about the bedrock principle that we have a supreme court in the first place. We have nine justices precisely because legal issues are open to interpretation and based upon legal principles that are constantly in flux--and yes, these principles are occasionally linked to politics. If that were not the case Scalia would not vote as he does and Ginsburg as she does. Both are performing their roles as justices, and as much as I can't stand Scalia (and on occasion can't stand Ginsburg) both of them are part of one of those bedrock principles that Grassly seems not to understnad himself: that the court has a variety of opinion because none of this is rote. If it were we wouldn't need nine justices. One would do. But Grassly can't seem to get it through his head (though I'm sure that if the one was Scalia Grassly would go for it).

The simple fact is that they lost the election and they don't like it. They honestly believed that if they could have won this one they could have gotten rid of Roe v. Wade. They've already eviscerated civil rights and environmental protections, so Roe v. Wade is really the whole ball of wax. But these damn hypocrites can't handle the fact that politics informs justice, it always has, and it always will--and our constitution acknowledges that. That's one of our bedrock principles. And either Grassly and Sessions know this, but they doesn't want to admit that their votes against Sotomayor are politically motivated, in which case they are deceiving the American people, or or they are just a couple of morons.


Post a Comment

<< Home