Carol Platt Liebau

Tuesday, February 22, 2005

Set forth here is one of the most disgraceful arguments to be hurled at any potential Supreme Court Justice (HT: Hugh Hewitt) -- namely, that Judge Michael Luttig would be impermissibly biased in hearing death penalty cases because his own father was, in fact, a crime victim.

Are the liberals really wanting to go down this road? By the same reasoning, every potential female justice should be asked whether she's ever had an abortion -- because abortion cases would come up before the Court. Or minority candidates would have to discuss how/whether they ever felt discriminated against -- because if they had, it might impermissibly color their view of civil rights cases.

It is liberal jurisprudence -- complete with the belief in a "living Constitution" -- that is most influenced by one's own life experiences, because the actual text of the Constitution, natural law, or other non-personal factors are not dispositive. Personal views will have disproportionate influence when there's nothing more substantial to guide a Justice's decision. So if a judge's personal experience should govern whether someone who doesn't adjudicate based on them deserves confirmation, how much more important is it when personal views and history may be incredibly central to the decisions -- as in the case of a liberal Justice?

Judge Luttig is a fine person and a qualified Justice. Left wing garbage hunters may want to step carefully, lest they open a Pandora box that will be disproportionately harmful to their own interests.

7 Comments:

Blogger who, me? said...

So, are they going to disqualify any female judge from sitting on challenges to Roe because she has had an abortion? Or not had an abortion?

What messy and imprecise thinking, just a cover for bias.

5:28 PM  
Blogger Sloan said...

It wasn't all that long ago that Court appointments sailed through the approval process so quickly that nobody gave them much thought. The whole process has become so politicized that we now find ourselves in the ludicrous situation described here. I can't help but wonder where it will all end.

10:29 AM  
Blogger cincinnatus said...

Hmm, let's just make stuff up --- it's the GOP way. You find a random post somewhere advocating a truly bizarre position --- i.e. that someone who is the victim of crime should not be able to sit in judgment of others (unrelated to the crime). Then you attribute it to "the liberals." Then PowerLine decides that this is basically the official position of Senate Democrats. Wow, this right-wing noise machine is awesome. Here, let me throw something out there: Republicans want to legalize child-molestation. Great. Now, maybe Kevin Drum will link to this and represent it as the official line of the Senate Republicans --- but no, people on our side are not slime like you. B

(By the way, Powerline readers: not everyone to the left of Rick Santorum is a traitor. It's possible (indeed it is sometimes requisite) to disagree with the President's foreign policy and be a patriot and lover of this country. In fact, dissent is an American value (much more fundamental than bashing people for falling in love with the wrong gender).

11:51 AM  
Blogger Grotmonster said...

So cincinnatus.. You can't spread the child molestation rumour because its obviously false. The left's belief system comes entirely from rumour.
Take the test:
1. Bush Lied About WMD T F
2. All Bush wants is oil T F
3. Undercover agents of
Karl Rove disguised
themselves as Democrat
precinct workers and
made poor people of
color be disenfranchised
in Ohio by standing in
long lines. T F

You see B. you are all about rumours. Try the reality cool-aid next time.

Mr Truth-o-meter

12:56 PM  
Blogger NBT said...

Oh this is great. Someone with a crystal ball. Can you take a look and tell me what are the winning lottery numbers next week? And perhaps post the weather as well.

These crystal balls sure can come in handy.

Much obliged for your cooperation.

3:15 PM  
Blogger Kyle said...

"What messy and imprecise thinking, just a cover for bias."

You mean Ms. Liebau, I presume.

6:56 PM  
Blogger richard said...

Shocking. Take a string of hypotheticals -- and I mean, like really, REALLY hypothetical hypotheticals (like, a vacancy might arise, a certain judge might be nominated, unnamed Democrats might adopt a certain hypothetical argument) -- and make them sound like imminent truths, why don't you? It's rich. It's explosive. It's damning. Ony problem: it isn't grounded in anything that resembles reality. Not that that's ever stopped Time magazine's Blog of the Year from embracing it as gospel.

When you step back and look at this thought process carefully it is nothing less than frightening. You are actually damning the Democrats for -- well, for what? For a fantasy scenario concocted by rightwing drum-banger Hugh Hewitt, pulled out of thin air, or maybe even pulled out of -- well, I won't go there.

Is this kind of logic indicative of true, values-oriented conservatism? Is it morally sound and capapble of standing the test of pure reason? Or is it an example of a creepy non-logic created by a herd mentality and based on painfully false conclusions? I have to go with the latter, and I hope all of you with even minimal grey matter do the same. This is dangerous stuff, and Hugh Hewitt is playing a dangerous game. He knows it, but I suspect Carol doesn't. By repeating it, she's serving as a lackey and a pawn.

Richard
pekingduck.org

1:55 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google