“A Farewell to Harms”
Palin was bad for the Republicans—and the republic.
by Peggy Noonan

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124716984620819351.html

Everything the Republicans hated about Palin but were afraid to say aloud…

Fairly harmless in an economical sense, but if borrowed by analogy or what have you in other affairs….

Let’s put it this way, the idea of Posner making an argument for an “efficient breach of the social contract” is rather disturbing.

“If that’s true then the Appellate level is the appropriate pool from which to draw nominees for SCOTUS (I would assume)because SCOTUS does not deal (in the main) with facts, only law.”

Dont’ forget where SCOTUS has original jurisdiction; e.g cases between states, etc.

That aside, I’m not clear on what you were asking.

During the Reagan years, some appellate judges were notoriously writing “Meese notes,” very conservative opinions aimed at attracting the attention of the Attorney General.

Posner does not seem to have done much of this. When faced with a law, he would often enforce it as written, even if it were a liberal anti-discrimination law or labor law, and the plaintiff employee or labor union won. Perhaps he could not be trusted consistently to twist the law, and may have lost his shot as a result. This is just my impression.

If that’s true then the Appellate level is the appropriate pool from which to draw nominees for SCOTUS (I would assume)because SCOTUS does not deal (in the main) with facts, only law.

Also, if that’s mostly true then the Court of the last 12 years has been very ‘activist’ in that it has constructed new rights and benefits that go beyond the four corners of law and precedent that preceeded it. For this reason I have always been hopeful that the Court could be packed with ‘activist’ judges from the left instead of the right- I want constitutional protections and benefits expanded, at the expense of a consolidation of power in the Executive and corporations.

I thinking Sotomayer is not the judge I’ve been hoping for.

If you say that “legal historians will always marvel at the fact that conservative Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago was never placed on the court”, then why not mention any of the authors of the most commonly used Hornbooks on Constitutional Law?

I’m all for diversity, but considering an appellate court concerns itself with questions of law rather than fact, de novo cases notwithstanding, why don’t we ever begin our searches with those who live and breathe within the trenches of Constitutional law?

***********************

It so many aspects of our democracy we have reaffirmed Voltaire’s maxim that “The best is the enemy of the good.” (Le mieux est l’ennemi du bien.) (La Bégueule (1772)) We tend to get the democracy we deserve, not the one we want — and there is no “safety” in that.

And I think this line says it all: “When it comes to trout and justices, Senators prefer to fish in the shallow end of the pond.”

PS. I wish everyone an enjoyable, peaceful week!

She should be be calling for obama’s arrest.

We all knew what kinda of train wreck that Thomas would be as well as Roberts. Scalia and the others were all so predictable. It is time we have people in power with substance and I am not talking about the lack of marrow in there spine.

With Rehnquist, it was suggested that he was sleeping with Eleanor, now that had to be some bag. He had qualifications beyond that such as worked on I think the Tax code before it was reformed. He had knowledge, depth and concept. He also had party loyalty.

Berger and Warren were as much as a disappointment to the Presidents that nominated them as they were as a surprise to the policies that they endorsed. Warren was nominated I believe by Eisenhower and he was claimed to have stated that the appointment was the biggest damned mistake I had ever made. He was probably one of the best for the citizen of the US, both civil and criminal litigants. If memory serves me correctly he was courted by both the Democrats and Republicans and was the Veep Candidate in 48.

Last but not least, the number of Justices serving can always be reduced or expanded the need may be the Size of the Court can be as flexible as weight. Because the United States Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court. Article III of the Constitution gives Congress the power to fix the number of Justices.

I wonder how much Power Congress could wield?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124743972191929637.html