Wednesday, July 06, 2005

Scathing Opinion on the Opinions

I could feel the heat coming from my monitor as I read Ann's latest. Wow! Her denunciation of Sandra O'Conner actually surprised me. I don't expect the courts to honor the constitution (which is a deed rather than a word) but I never really paid much attention to examining the opinions beyond a cursory glance. I might note which Judge voted the way I might, and was really disappointed with their latest decision regarding theft of real property to give to others for which I gave O'Conner points for a dissent...

The thing is, the Supreme Court is suppose to be the final say on matters. Which suggest it requires of pretty high standard for those writing an opinion. When you or I talk about opinions, we are reminded of the comparison between a certain anatomical orifice which everybody has... but the written opinion's of the Supreme Court are supposed to be of a different nature. Those opinions are supposed to be based on written law, the words of which are suppose to contain meaning. They just can't disregard the law to give what a lay person would define as an opinion.

Well, when you filter out the harsh venom (ya gotta love her!) that's basically what Ann is claiming - in 25 years, O'Conner has not contributed to legally clarifying the law with regard to contentious issues... the Supreme Court is not suppose to make law (that's what those other bums are suppose to do) they are suppose to support and defend the Constitution from attack, foreign and DOMESTIC.

She covers a lot of ground, but just one example makes her point. Ann says... she preferred her own words, "entanglement" and "endorsement," to the Constitution's word "establishment."

This really is the heart of the matter. A clarification of what establishment means constitutionally is what we expect once the matter reaches the Supreme Court. To muddy the waters by introducing issues that don't exist is the law, taking the matter away from the point, is horrendous.

Even Judge Judy gets it. She's says, when you come into her court the issue is money. If you want psychiatric help, call Dr. Phil!

Each to it's own venue.

It's not really funny.

Ann makes one point that she doesn't directly substantiate... "It's often said that O'Connor's problem is that she is not a judge, but a legislator." Although she gives a number of examples where the judge is acting as a legislator, she doesn't indicate where it's often said. I expect somebody else will point this out to her in order to attack her opinion. To which I expect Ann will provide the references. Sometimes I wish Ann weren't quite so over the top, but it is fun to watch even when the most serious of issues is the topic.

Flame on!

Update: Someone agrees with her.


Post a Comment

<< Home