tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7871003.post112842969145684695..comments2023-11-03T04:39:50.760-05:00Comments on Galley Slaves: Because Karen Hughes Didn't Go to Law SchoolJonathan V. Lasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17426165197358366129noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7871003.post-1128474012800579932005-10-04T20:00:00.000-05:002005-10-04T20:00:00.000-05:00Thomas' argument is that the Constitution presuppo...Thomas' argument is that the Constitution presupposes "natural law" like the Declaration of Independence explicitly does. It is a Lincolnian argument. He believes without it the Constitutional language is unmoored and easily manipulated by the flavor of the day. Bork believes that natural law itself is unmoored and allows too much judicial leeway. However, an "originalist" and a natural law thinker will almost always arrive at the same conclusion. Evidence I think that the framers had a concept of "natural law" in mind. Either approach binds a judge to something other than his own views however and is an acceptable objective way of looking at the Constitution. <BR/><BR/>Gore in 88 was, in the public mind, the conservative pro-life, pro-gun strong on defense Democrat. That someone unwilling to dump the party of her ancestors found the most rightward southern alternative and contributed is not much of a problem. The first Bush looked almost like a typical Ct. Shayes Republican before Reagan made him Veep. It is not apparent to me that a casual observer would think Bush would be more conservative on domestic and foreign policy given their respective pre-veep or presidential runs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7871003.post-1128463733385451442005-10-04T17:08:00.000-05:002005-10-04T17:08:00.000-05:00Re Bork's comment, context for it would be helpful...Re Bork's comment, context for it would be helpful. I've always been under the impression that judges don't enforce law, natural or otherwise, they interpret it. If I'm right, Bork left himself some wiggle room. <BR/><BR/>Moreover, the fact that judges don't have "greater access" to natural law than the rest of us doesn't speak to the utility or wisdom of appealing to natural law in argumentation; it's just another way of recognizing that we're all human, whether we wear judicial robes or not. Bork saying, in effect, "I put my pants on one leg at a time just like you" doesn't address the validity of natural law one way or the other.bob joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03547517190417481675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7871003.post-1128443086383298792005-10-04T11:24:00.000-05:002005-10-04T11:24:00.000-05:00Anonymous (10:08 AM): I've never understood how th...Anonymous (10:08 AM): <I>I've never understood how the conservative movement can praise both Bork and Justice Thomas. Thomas claims to base his jurisprudence on theories of natural law. Yet possibly the single most fundamental element of Bork's jurisprudence is a rejection of natural law and other nontextual theories as a basis for judicial action.</I><BR/><BR/>Thomas also claims to be a textualist, and his SC opinions are consistent with textualism. Mystery solved.Scrutineerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16556970103045514403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7871003.post-1128438657118853992005-10-04T10:10:00.000-05:002005-10-04T10:10:00.000-05:00Besides, I happen to have it on good authority tha...Besides, I happen to have it on good authority that Karen Hughes earned an A- in Con Law at SMU. <BR/><BR/>So <I>there</I>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7871003.post-1128438150616713552005-10-04T10:02:00.000-05:002005-10-04T10:02:00.000-05:00If you're suggesting that Karen Hughes is somehow ...If you're suggesting that Karen Hughes is somehow unqualified to serve on the SCOTUS simply because she lacks a law degree, well, I think that only goes to show your obsession with <I>qualifications</I> and <I>competence</I>.<BR/><BR/>Myself, I happen to disagree with the president's selection. Not because of any fault of Ms. Miers--heaven forfend!--but because if you're looking for a justice with the <I>purest</I> heart, who could possibly be better qualified than Laura Bush?<BR/><BR/>MR. PRESIDENT, YOU DO THE NATION A GRAVE INJUSTICE! DO NOT DENY US THE LIFE TENURE OF YOUR HELPMEET!!! <B>THE NATION CRIES OUT TO YOU!!!</B>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7871003.post-1128434888692510352005-10-04T09:08:00.000-05:002005-10-04T09:08:00.000-05:00Interesting note on Bork. I've never understood ho...Interesting note on Bork. I've never understood how the conservative movement can praise both Bork and Justice Thomas. Thomas claims to base his jurisprudence on theories of natural law. Yet possibly the single most fundamental element of Bork's jurisprudence is a rejection of natural law and other nontextual theories as a basis for judicial action.<BR/><BR/>Bork: <I>I am far from denying that there is a natural law, but I do deny both that we have given judges the authority to enforce it and that judges have any greater access to that law than do the rest of us.</I><BR/><BR/>Thomas: <I>The higher-law background of the American Constitution, whether explicitly appealed to or not, provides the only firm basis for a just, wise, and constitutional decision.</I><BR/><BR/>Both men cannot both be right. Either Bork is right and Thomas is a dangerous fool, or Thomas is right and Bork is a myopic fantasist. Praising one without rejecting the other is akin to believing that the earth is both a flat disc and a sphere. It may be one or the other, or neither, but it cannot be both. So if Thomas is a good justice, then the Senate was right to reject Bork and Miers deserves praise for supporting those who opposed Bork.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com