tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post6128910110190146675..comments2023-09-15T04:27:57.129-04:00Comments on Commentarama: Through The Legal Looking Glass--Hail To The ChiefAndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-32176419536558367332009-07-16T01:24:02.967-04:002009-07-16T01:24:02.967-04:00Lawhawk,
That's interesting because I had alw...Lawhawk,<br /><br />That's interesting because I had always been told that ERA was about women getting the same pay as a man for the same work. Shows that the MSM was pushing propaganda even then.<br /><br />As an aside I do not know how to do the dance the "Lawnmower" or the "Sprinkler". Since the government just spent $700,000 to teach SSN administrators these dances in a resort in Phoenix do I have the legal right to go the the SSN office and ask for lessons. Just a question?Individualisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11005025873042230314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-42031706180697729892009-07-15T04:26:05.176-04:002009-07-15T04:26:05.176-04:00Individualist: Excellent and thoughtful question....Individualist: Excellent and thoughtful question. Amendments to the Constitution are meant to be tough to enact. The Founding Fathers fully recognized the danger of temporary majorities. Amendments serve the sole purpose of changing or adding core rights, or correcting problems which were either not addressed or didn't work after the adoption. Ending slavery was an example of the former. Changing the order of Presidential succession was an example of the latter. The vast majority of day-to-day legal matters are addressed by legislative acts which require no change in the Consitution. So truly necessary, easily-understood amendments which genuinely serve the common good are ratified rather quickly. Special narrow political or social agendas are rarely ratified, so activist Supreme Courts have commandeered the process. <br /><br />Therefore, the answer to your question is that genuinely necessary amendments don't need the Supreme Court, and special pleaders do. If it's important for the common good of all the people, go the amendment route. If it serves special interests, don't even bother proposing an amendment, just wait for the next activist Court. Thus, the overall process of amendment has not been affected in any appreciable way either positively or negatively by activist Supreme Courts.<br /><br />The ERA was a perfect example of a special agenda passing as a sexual equality issue. It was a feminist (classical and modern) propaganda feelgood piece. Once the Constitution was amended to give women equal voting rights, everything in ERA became superfluous. Very conservative courts had already accepted that any law passed prior to the women's vote amendment automatically now included both men and women. The people of the states quite simply saw no point in adding a superfluous amendment to the Constitution which now already protected every single right in the proposed ERA. Thus, ERA failed. It wasn't an activist court that killed it, nor did an activist court kill the need for it. It died a natural death from routine legislation and rulings by a relatively conservative Court.LawHawkRFDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17800255923675295515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-82589671875348276462009-07-15T01:32:34.395-04:002009-07-15T01:32:34.395-04:00Law Hawk
Very informative article. It got me thi...Law Hawk<br /><br />Very informative article. It got me thinking about something. I remember hearing of the ERA movement when I was 12 and how it almost passed as an ammendment. In reading about the judicial activism of the court and how it led to finding "rights of privacy". I note that it seems that the things they were trying to ammend with ERA ended up becoming precedent that justices like Sotomayor will be will find. Do you see this as an impediment to getting ammendments passed. afte all why go through the trouble if the judges can read what they want in them anyways. I think that might have some affect on ERA being abandoned.Individualisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11005025873042230314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-8042880386353805172009-07-14T15:16:52.540-04:002009-07-14T15:16:52.540-04:00Tennessee: Imagine the Senate hearings on the thr...Tennessee: Imagine the Senate hearings on the three justices. All three were nominated during highly contentious political times, yet the hearings were civil, no rags-to-riches stories, just a few inquiries into their legal background, and a quick vote for confirmation (all three were confirmed in near-unanimous votes). Sotomayor would have been confirmed after one day of simple hearings, except for one detail: no President would have nominated her in the first place.<br /><br />PS: Did I mention that I graduated from <b>Earl Warren High School</b>? No, I'm not making that up. The town I grew up in went Warren-mad in the mid-fifties, and named one of its two high schools after him. The football team was "the Bears" and the cheerleaders were called "The Honey Bears" (after his nickname for his daughter). By the early sixties, the same town was in the forefront of the "impeach Earl Warren" movement. No wonder I'm paranoid.LawHawkRFDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17800255923675295515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-6866821530511093522009-07-14T14:59:25.334-04:002009-07-14T14:59:25.334-04:00I admit to being a bit nauseated listening to the ...I admit to being a bit nauseated listening to the hearings. So it is that your piece was a nice relative antidote for my gloomTennessee Jedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10604275115906776992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-24284750528014160212009-07-14T13:36:41.095-04:002009-07-14T13:36:41.095-04:00Andrew: Principles? Principles! We don't nee...Andrew: Principles? Principles! We don't need no stinking principles! Bush did an amazing job of avoiding the major pitfall of appointing "moderates," which one wag described as "liberals in training." He also avoided his father's mistake of appointing an unknown with a seemingly non-activist bench record (Souter). Considering we got Alito and Roberts, I'll forgive W for his misfire with Harriet Miers, who would have been Souter in a dress.<br /><br />The other mistake Republicans tend to make is picking justices with seemingly good academic records regarding their philosophy of the law, combined with bench records which seem mainstream. This is called "appointing someone who will grow in office." Translation: "A judge who will make a sharp left turn the moment he is no longer restrained by lower court decisions and the possibility of losing his job." Prime example: William Brennan.LawHawkRFDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17800255923675295515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-72653825285671143672009-07-14T13:22:10.028-04:002009-07-14T13:22:10.028-04:00WriterX: The thing that irritated you about the h...WriterX: The thing that irritated you about the hearings is exactly what triggered my opening remark about being "near-apoplexy." All they needed was violins in the background to make it perfect. The only thing that was missing from the visuals was a big photo of the log cabin she grew up in.LawHawkRFDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17800255923675295515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-4753103564791664902009-07-14T13:17:05.854-04:002009-07-14T13:17:05.854-04:00CrisD: There are many books about all three, but ...CrisD: There are many books about all three, but as always there are viewpoints involved. Give me a little time to review some sources, and I'll recommend a few to you which I think are historically accurate and not skewed by revisionism. Warren is particularly knotty since about 3/4 of the writers love everything about his court, while 1/4 absolutely despise every move that court ever made, so neutrality or fairness is hard to find.LawHawkRFDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17800255923675295515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-51535399692799963282009-07-14T11:18:40.531-04:002009-07-14T11:18:40.531-04:00Lawhawk, I've never heard of these guys? Just...Lawhawk, I've never heard of these guys? Just kidding. Nice article. With Warrnen v. Ike, I think it is no surprise that "moderate" Republicans tend to be the ones who appoint justices they ultimately regret because they don't understand the need to find justices with principles.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-6783594855359406912009-07-14T10:02:35.612-04:002009-07-14T10:02:35.612-04:00Not to get too off topic here but I was watching t...Not to get too off topic here but I was watching the hearings yesterday while I was at the gym. I think these three Justices would be turning in their graves if they saw the spectacle. It became more about the senators than Sotomayor. If I heard one more "rags to riches" personal story, I was going to be ill. That women from Minnesota was particularly annoying. And good thing I was running on the treadmill at the time. <br /><br />Very interesting history on the chief justices. I didn't know that Eisenhower regretted his choice of Warren. Thank you!Writer Xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16505411188186283813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4425587034622601550.post-32695073109922133792009-07-14T07:31:42.170-04:002009-07-14T07:31:42.170-04:00Law Hawk!
I got to your article at 7 a.m. and wha...Law Hawk!<br /><br />I got to your article at 7 a.m. and what a way to wake up! I loved this chatty synopsis of these three influential souls! <br /><br />Can you recommend a book on one of them (without TOO many footnotes ;^)?CrisDnoreply@blogger.com