The Unregulated Offensive

the new york times ^ | April 17, 2005 | JEFFREY ROSEN

[ken21]

thank you.

[neverdem]

Jeffrey Rosen

Bruce Gilden/Magnum, for The New York Times
Chip Mellor, Institute for Justice.

Bruce Gilden/Magnum, for The New York Times
Michael Greve, American Enterprise Institute.

Bruce Gilden/Magnum, for The New York Times
Richard Epstein, University of Chicago.

This is a long and informative articlce about the judiciary since FDR. It's pretty fair even though it's written by a lefty, IIRC.

From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

[duck duck goose]

Thanks for the ping.

[Cacique]

Because the intelligentsia always believes it should be the only elite by virtue of their "Intelligence" and they are loath to share power with other elites, a historically fatal mistake. When "democratic" political systems collapse, power goes not to the intelligent, but to the ruthless.

[ken21]

the photos of the conservatives seemed offensive to me.

it was as if the nyt did what the media always does, take several hundred fast shots, and chose the least attractive of the lot for the conservatives.

[neverdem]

the photos of the conservatives seemed offensive to me.

That's a good observation. Those evil right wingers in black and white pics with a lot of dark shadow, film noir.

[hocndoc]

Thanks for the ping, neverdem, and for posting this, ken21.

Do all those people in the photographs *want* to look like it's 1937, again? Can we just make it wishful thinking?

There is, as Robert George has noticed, a "Clash of Orthodoxies." Some of us see nothing wrong with overturning laws which are based on penumbras and emanations, while others are just as accepting of the devining of such.

Life, liberty, and property - in that order, and as "First principles" - are the only ligitimate concerns of a legitimate government, especially at the Federal level. If a legislature or a judiciary cannot find a basis for a law in these three, then the law is not a legitimate Federal matter.

But, of course, everyone should agree with my interpretation of "Life, liberty, and property" before they start action. (grin)

One issue is the activism - and the definition of "activism." I've read comments that seem to imply that there is a difference of opinion between Thomas and Scalia on what constitutes "originalism" and activism. I'm still deciding which side of that fine line I'm on. With my primary concern being the first of the First Principles, I may tend toward what Scalia, and this author most certainly would, consider activism.

[hocndoc]

Because taxation will pay their salaries and enact their will. If there is not enough money, just tax some more. If there is no law to justify their wishes, they can find a sympathetic judge to do so.

Why waste time with earning a living or changing the Constitution the legitimate way?

[lainde]

bump and thanks!

[G.Mason]

"Thomas did not cite Epstein directly in his opinion. But to anyone familiar with Epstein's writings, the similarities were striking. Indeed, Thomas's argument closely resembled one Epstein had made eight years earlier in ''The Proper Scope of the Commerce Power'' in the Virginia Law Review -- so closely, in fact, that Sanford Levinson, a liberal law professor at the University of Texas, accused Thomas of outright intellectual theft. (''The ordinary standards governing attribution of sources -- the violation of which constitutes plagiarism -- seem not to apply in Justice Thomas's chambers,'' Levinson wrote in the Texas Law Review.)"

I am not amused by this most obvious hit on Justice Thomas. As though all men must have original thought, or none at all.

Perhaps Justice O'Connor and the other Socialists on the Supreme Court, should be made to clearly state references to any and all decisions they make, thereby giving the originators of that thought proper credit, for certainly these justices are marching to a tune written by persons unknown to the Founding Fathers.

Thanks for the ping neverdem, and the article ken21.

I am far from finished reading this, however my red, white, and blue has already been assaulted to the max.

[auboy]

Very interesting article. Thanks!

[green iguana]

gee, that's just terrible ain't it?

Yes it is. Unless you happen to think that the only rights a man has are those delineated in the Constitution. And that belief is in direct conflict with the 9th and 10th Amendments:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Forgive me if you weren't being sarcastic.

[ken21]

like you, that paragraph stuck out.

the liberals are never going to treat clarence thomas as an equal.

it's really racism.

the democrats wanted a white female or white male "progressive" on the supreme court who would protect the rights of black men.

they didn't want a black man on the supreme court, certainly not a conservative, and most certainly not one of the economic rights of man stripe.

[kpp_kpp]

that's great, you're quoting from the CONSTITUTION... get it?

it speaks for itself.

[ariamne]

Great reading; thanks for the ping kp.
AAC, check it out.

[G.Mason]

" the liberals are never going to treat clarence thomas as an equal.

it's really racism ..."

Amen to that!

In listening to Dr. Sowell on C-Span the other day, I was heartened by his statement that there are many black conservatives now that are blogging, on radio, and other media venues and are getting the message out.

One of the reasons I would like to see Dr. Rice run for president would be to drive these Sharpton, Jackson, and the entire stale Dimocrat Party types bankrupt. As bankrupt as their 1860's mentality.

I'm certainly thankful she is where she is. She is a constant front page reminder to the Dims that the blacks can and are leaving the Democrat Party "plantation". ;)

[HonestConservative]

"Constitution in Exile movement are not especially concerned about states' rights or judicial deference to legislatures; instead, they encourage judges to strike down laws on behalf of rights that don't appear explicitly in the Constitution."

What a quaint notion the rule of law is. We conservatives are such simpletons. Simply no ability to parse. (SARC)

Such an important valuable post. Thank you.

[ken21]

thanks.

this is why the "progressives" want a "living" u.s. constitution--so that they can rewrite it to their emoting.