|
Taj Mahal No More
Quote:
Originally posted by Gattigap
Ah. OK, I understand your point now. Thanks.
Re: blocking judicial nominations, yes. It's unsavory, and as I recall, both sides have done it over the last dozen years without particular remorse or regret. Reading (say) Hatch's comments then and now is both amusing and depressing.
As for the rest of it, I don't agree with your point, though.
It's not the same thing -- with abortion, proponents did take it to the Court, where they would either win, or lose. That's the way courts are supposed to work, and as a matter of process, I don't think it's gaming anything.
Today's GOP, by stripping away Fed Jur., wants to keep proponents from going to court AT ALL, and that strikes me as, you know, different.
I sense a riposte of something along the lines of "a-HA! But the liberals packed the courts with liberal, sissified judges! THAT's how they gamed it!" Well, not so much, no. See my prior post re: the realities of the new cliche of "judicial activism." Its sell-by date was circa 1969.
Gattigap
|
We litigators* should all be able to agree that going to court and losing is one thing -- hey, it happens -- but that not permitting litigation is another -- it's so inhumane it should be outlawed in the Geneva Convention or something, not that that would stop the Republicans.
* eta: Or litigatrixes, as the case may be.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
Last edited by Tyrone Slothrop; 07-16-2004 at 12:44 PM..
|
