Thursday, June 30, 2005
Another third rate column by the Strib's resident fourth rate intellect
Writing about this shrill harpy two days in a row is almost more than I can stomach. Today Minnesota's Worst Writer™ regurgitates
Empty Suit Norm's thinking on judicial appointments with all the insight of a last minute high school civics paper. Does she really gets paid for this stuff?
[I]n evaluating a city government's decision to condemn property, a good judge would permit such a "taking" only for the purpose stated in the Constitution: a "public use," such as roads. The judge would see that the Founders would spin in their graves if they knew a court was interpreting the words "public use" -- language meant to check government power -- to include government-sanctioned five-star hotels.
Aside from the intellectual dishonesty (which is expected) in the quip about the five star hotel this is a classic example of what constitutional fights are almost always about, interpretation. The recent "takings" case was all about what constitutes a public use, and tho you can argue that case either way KK doesn't bother to argue it at all. She simply pretends that public use has some easily defined meaning that she has somehow divined. This is the kind of legal writing that gets your first semester Research and Writing paper returned to you with a big red X on it and a reminder of the instructor's office hours. Her article is full of this kind of claptrap but I really don't have the mental energy to point out all of it.
A judge shouldn't decide a case by asking, "What outcome seems fair to me here?" or be influenced by the intellectual fashions of the day.
A Supreme Court justice should be grounded in the political philosophy that won the day at the time that he or she was appointed.
I guess this isn't an internal contradiction only if you admit that Republican political philosophy these days lacks any intellectual content.
Bush should nominate a conservative, says Coleman, because the people endorsed a conservative philosophy when they elected Bush.
Actually this means Bush should nominate someone who is afraid of gay people and thinks Saddam planned the 9-11 attacks. I'm guessing he manages to fulfill at least half that criteria.
KK's intellectual dwarfism aside, let's face it, Norm is going to vote to confirm whoever W nominates, no two ways about. Anyone who thinks otherwise has not been paying attention. Short of someone who had recently slept with his wife, there is no conceivable nominee Norm would oppose. (Tho unless W engages in some FDR style court packing that list does provide a pretty deep pool, albeit one that likely fails to include Norm.)