Posted on 07/11/2005 12:26:33 PM PDT by pookie18
Edith Jones, A Fifth Circuit judge and possible Supreme Court choice, argues that the "reigning legal philosophy" is responsible for the bitter politics that surround judicial nominations. Jones charged that legal elites ("mandarins of the law") have long since come to view the courts as agents of social change. Federal judges, and later state judges, caught on to this heightened view of their power. Then, as judge-made law invaded politically sensitive areas, it provoked a political reaction. Jones thinks it will take decades to repair the damage and return to assessing Supreme Court nominees according to their brains and fairness rather than their propensity (or lack of it) for advancing their politics on the bench. According to Jones, writing in the University of Richmond Law Review, "The restoration of more civil and objective selection processes will not occur until the reigning legal philosophy becomes less ambitious and overweening." This will come about, Jones says, only "when the rule of law is again tethered to respect for the executive and legislative branches of government, to traditional legal craftsmanship, to continuity, to moral values, and to limited social aims."
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
It is so weird to see folks campaign for the high court.
That said I'm equally as sure that Bush doesn't have the balls to nominate her because the loony left considers her to be an "exceptional circumstance" that would undoubtedly require a filibuster that I'm sure Bush feels our spineless majority can't deal with.
Too bad!
She's good.
I don't know if she's "campainging" or not, but a few days ago there was quite a long article about a speech she gave at Harvard. You ought to check it out.
Remember any thing about the posted article? Posted on FR?
I looked over the front running candidates, and to all appearances she would be one of the best.
It was posted on FR just a few days ago, and I pung it out to one of my pinglists. I'll try to find it and put a link here.
It is time to end the judicial branch's independence, with term limits for federal judges and retention elections for the Supreme Court. This will require that state legislatures call for a convention to suggest amendments to the Constitution.
I suggest a twelve-year term limit in any one judicial position, with promotion but not reappointment not being possible, and a twenty-year limit on service in federal judicial office regardless of promotion. I.e., a person may be appointed as a federal district court judge, serve there for ten years, and then be promoted to the federal circuit court of appeals where he'll be termed out after ten years.
I'd have retention elections for the U.S. Supreme Court, based on a state's electoral votes rather than popular votes, and have it affect the entire court rather than individual judges - the ballot would read, "Should the justices of the United States Supreme Court be retained in office?" (with a yes/no vote). Every few years (I favor two years given that the Supremes monkeying with national security in intelligence matters could get thousands of us killed) this would appear on federal ballots.
I'd make it the entire Court rather than individual justices because at the national level there just isn't, and can't be, name identification for judges the way there is for presidential candidates. It is the Court as a whole which is an issue, not an individual candidate for President. We want Supreme Court justices to focus on their day jobs, not getting their name identification across to voters.
The original John Leo article here appears in U.S. News at:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/050718/18john.htm
Read my No. 11.
The past tense of ping is pang. A pung is a low, one-horse box sleigh.
yup , but perhaps she just lobbied herself out of contention [/srcsm]
Are you positive it isn't "panged" with an "ed"?
Or "pungified"? I guess "pungified" is when you're the object and not the subject, or is it the other way around? I was always rotten at grammar rules.
:-)
How's the weather in Sac?
Awesome prayer on your profile page!
Here is a link to the article about the speech she gave at Harvard:
JUDGE EDITH H. JONES Tells Harvard Law School: "American Legal System Is Corrupt Beyond Recognition"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1438496/posts
I can't figure out how to have more than 20 comments on my "comments" page. It totally sucks. It makes it really hard to find anything.
Unbelievably hot. It's been in the high 90s to low 100s all week.
Thanks
It doesn't say "Show more results" at the bottom of the page?
It says it all right, but there's no "hand" and nothing happens even if I bang my mouse with all my might. I even went to a preferences page and managed to change the number of replies on a thread to 100, but my comments are at 20. And since I run 2 ping lists, I get so many a day stuff gets lost.
:-(
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.