Free Republic

Take this piece, and consider it along with the photograph of the muslim woman in England holding the sign reading "Islam will dominate the world." Then consider mobs that riot over perceived insults. Remember then how the proud muslim military tradition has been allowed to degenerate into the shameful practices of indiscriminate bombings and barbaric murders. Consider as well the Saudi "virtue" police arresting Pakistani Christians for practicing "poison."

Look at this objectively, and what you see is a sizable minority of one of the world's great religions acting out a huge inferiority complex. Islam is about 700 years younger than Christianity, and there are those believers that insist on being about where Christianity was 700 years ago--emerging from the dark ages.

I am sure Saudi Arabia is in fact a Paradise on earth. There is no racism there, I am sure because it is not racist to treat as inferior someone who is in fact, inferior. There is no religious intolerance because there is only one religion, or version of one religion that is worthy of tolerance. And of course, Paradise wouldn't be Paradise without public beheadings.

I am not down on Islam, Muslims or even Saudi Arabians. But as long as they let an irrational and vocal minority make the case for all of them, any cynicism they provoke is deserved.

There are two key facts about what is going on Iraq that leads me to believe the insurgency is waning:

1.) Hundreds of Iraqi men men are willing to wait in long lines and risk suicide bombers, etc., in order to sign up for the Iraqi security forces. They would not do this unless they believed the future favored the government, and not the insurgency.

2.) Six months ago insurgents were regularly attacking police stations, while the Iraqi police skittered out the back door, leaving weapons and equipment in insurgent hands. This has not been happening of late. Instead, the insurgent violence, while being more deadly, has less of a military value. The insurgency has thus degenerated from a military to a purely terror enterprise. Point 1.) suggests that ordinary Iraquis aren't buying into it.

As the military situation in Iraq improves over the next four months, count on the main-stream media to get away from military casualties and the number of Iraqis killed in bombings, etc, and focus on ...corruption in the Iraqi government.

We now seem to be sliding into that conversational chasm of talking past one another. Perhaps we should be more precise about our arguments.

I don't think that my proposals are sloppy at all. I think they give due deference to the law of unintended consequences and recognize the reality of the justice system, not only in the United States but everywhere, not just now but always. I don't think you can limit the function (abuses in this case) of the courts without limiting the methods. We need to limit the damage done by mavericks on the Supreme Court (and there will always be mavericks. Remember how John Sunnunu promised Bush 41 that there was no "closet liberal" aspect to Souter?) by limiting the influence bad decisions have on the lower courts. Stare Decisis is an artificial construction. Toss it.

Perhaps we need to define a "living constitution." I think a living constitution is O.K. if it lives through the amendment process and not the interpretation process. "We the People" should have our input into bringing application of founding principles into conformity with modern realities.

You and I do not seem to be connecting on a fundamental point. I see the problem as one that emanates from the Supreme Court but is odious at the level of the inferior courts. You seem to suggest that we can somehow get the Supreme Court justices to shape up. (Can you propose some constitutional language to do so?)

I suspect that your main objection to my thoughts is that they do not go far enough for your tastes; that you'd like to clear the field and have the Supreme Court start afresh with a renewed integrity intended by the founders. I'd like to also; I just don't think it's possible.

About 120 years ago a medical editor succinctly distinguished between "mercy killing" and letting a patient go when his time came:

"Surrenduring to superior forces is not the same as leading the enemy in an attack on one's own friends."

Thanks for the reasoned and articulate response. Your points are well-taken but, in my opinion, wrong. Your concession that my comments were prompted by considerations of "principles...of how the founders intended them to work" renders much of what followed moot. If the judiciary worked the way the founders intended it to we wouldn't be havng this discussion. My proposals are intended to have consequnces similar to that intended by the founders. Your points are well-stated but have no more practical effect than paying some street crazy to stand in front of the Supreme Court building and shout "Observe original intent!"

As to specific points:
I do not believe in a "living constitution." Perhaps I stated my position badly. My point is that the concept of stare decisis is inconsistent with the concept of a "living constitution." Let's have one or the other. What we have now doesn't make sense.

I did not advocate "dispensing with" any constitutional provisions at an arbitrary date. I proposed limiting the precedential value of Supreme Court decisions to a term certain. This will have one very practical result: Right now, the Supreme Court is rather lethargic about granting certiorari in matters that may have been half-assed decided. If we limit stare decisis, lower courts will gradually reject unsound precedent (and follow well-grounded rulings) so the Supreme Court will repeatedly be re-presented with weak rulings and have a chance to address them.

The life appointment of judges was an iffy proposition from the outset. It likely was the brain-child of the brilliant but self-destructive Hamilton, who wanted the executive to also serve a life term. Franklin wisely observed that the mind sometimes putters out before the body. I am dubious of the notion that executives appoint judges with the expectation that they will "grow" into their office. Life tenure in the extreme is more likely to produce decisions flavored with senility than wisdom.

The Supreme Court bought into that Blackstonian twaddle that courts merely declare what the law is, much like Michelagelo thought that his job was to free a sculpture of the excess stone. Some legal scholars interpreted Blackstone to mean that the only valid Supreme Court decisions were unanimous. Maybe we should only let the Court screw with legislation if the opinions are unanimous.