Thus spracht ME

Rants and commentary. My PGP key fingerprint F697 6D3F F5DF BD2F 01B6 ED98 5303 8036 C3FC 4DF3

My Photo
Location: North East, Ohio, United States

Saturday, October 29, 2005

Best SCOTUS Nominee

I hesitate to bring this up, as My ideas have a dismal habit of falling apart. Over there at the Smallest Minority, the topic of a good candidate for the next SCOTUS choice is discussed. I find myself in agreement. Judge Kozinski first blipped on my radar screen in his dessent in Sylveira.

Judges know very well how to read the Constitution broadly when they are sympathetic to the right being asserted. We have held, without much ado, that “speech, or . . . the press” also means the Internet...and that “persons, houses, papers, and effects” also means public telephone booths....When a particular right comports especially well with our notions of good social policy, we build magnificent legal edifices on elliptical constitutional phrases - or even the white spaces between lines of constitutional text. But, as the panel amply demonstrates, when we’re none too keen on a particular constitutional guarantee, we can be equally ingenious in burying language that is incontrovertibly there. It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as springboards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us. As guardians of the Constitution, we must be consistent in interpreting its provisions. If we adopt a jurisprudence sympathetic to individual rights, we must give broad compass to all constitutional provisions that protect individuals from tyranny. If we take a more statist approach, we must give all such provisions narrow scope. Expanding some to gargantuan proportions while discarding others like a crumpled gum wrapper is not faithfully applying the Constitution; it’s using our power as federal judges to constitutionalize our personal preferences.
The spanking Judge Kozinski gave his fellow Judges on the 9th circuit has been totaly missed by them. Linked to Point Five open trackbacks I have more to say about this... They must have literaly a collective "dead ass" I am borrowing heavily from Kevins blog. He links to Geek With a .45 who has a .pdf on Judg Kozinski. I am working from Kevins blog, because the last update of Acrobat totaly f*'d up and I can nolonger open .pdf's. As Kevin says, Judge Kozinski would be an excelen candidate for President Bush to nominate, because
Unlike recent Supreme Court nominees, Kozinski doesn't hesitate to trumpet his judicial agenda: "I want to change the face of American jurisprudence," he has declared.
He would be a candidate that the conservative base would be behind 99%. A big plus is that democrats in general, and liberals in particular would HAAAAaaaate him. I, and many other conservatives are fed up with the pussy footing around. We are ready for the fight. Wa WANT the 'Constituional' option deployed. We WANT to slap the libs with a clue bat. Kevin says this won't happen because the President doesn't want the controversy at home. Well, we do. Just as with the war on terror, appeasement doesn't work. We WANT to fight the good fight. We WANT to WIN. We CAN win. So give us someone to fight FOR. No more defense. that is a loosing position. Leave that to and for the left. From kevin:
Which is why, I beleive neither he nor Janice Rogers Brown will be offered the seat. Bush wants to avoid conflict at home. But it's time and past time for that conflict, IMHO. It's time to drag out the Left and make them expose themselves completely to the general public. Note these comments: The conservative judge Richard Posner calls him "one of the best and smartest judges in the country," and Harvard constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe considers him "on of the few genuinely interesting minds in the Federal Judiciary." Note the author while he pointed out Posner's political leanings, he didn't mention that Lawrence Tribe is (accurately) a self-described liberal - one, I will note, who seems remarkably intellectually honest. Clint Bolick, the litigation director for the Institute of Justice... says if he were "advising a president on the Supreme Court, Alex would be on the top of my list." -- "Alex is one of the true conservative libertarians in public life today," says Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz is an überliberal - also un-noted.
And from the dishonest left:
"Kozinski gets away with a lot because he is so funny and charming," says Nan Aron, president of the liberal Alliance for Justice. "But he is also very dangerous, especially with regard to the rights of immigrants, workers, and the poor. Property rights always trump human rights for him." Fellow Ninth Circuit judge Stephen Reinhardt, a passionate liberal and close friend of Kozinski's, is also one of his harshest critics. "What do I think of his views? Not much," he says bluntly. "Alex is one of the brightest of the right wing, but he focuses too narrowly on property and is terrible on affirmative action and other civil rights. I would hate to see him on the Supreme Court, where he could do some really serious damage."
My opinion? Their damnation is great praise. Judge Kozinski would bea great nominee. For the President, for the conservatives, and -once confirmed- for the country. Therefore it won't happen.