Gee what a shock, NER agrees with you and attacks me, and you "have" to agree with him! I will admit that I didn't actually believe that you meant it when you wrote "I doubt you would want anyone who studied Critical Legal Theory to be a sitting federal judge" and that is why I called you on it. But instead of blaming me, wouldn't it be nice if you just admitted the mistake? Well if you had wrote it that way in the first place, it would have been clear, It's not my fault I can't read your mind. The problem with believing that Bork warranted a fight for keeping of the bench, is that that fight can be warranted against many many nominees, and I think the potential for that fight is preventing some excellent judges from moving along as they should, in favor of mediocre judges who have been politically astute enough not to piss people off.
This is the type of crap that pissses me off. There are plenty of people on both ends of the political spectrum who have a problem with the 9th ammendment. It has long been a controversial ammendment because it is so vague that once you try to apply it, there is almost no end to where it can stop. The funny part is that Bork's point of view was that judges should be leary about the use of this amendment because it basically gives judges unlimited powers. So somehow a judge who wants to restrain the power of the courts is a threat, but one who thinks that the constitution is flexible enough to alow for broad reinterpretation by judges, (ie by the same person asking for a lifetime appointment) is OK.
The only logical conclusion to this is that there are no judges worth fighting to try and keep off the bench. So, how come you're not pissed off at Jesse Helms's antics? Either that, or the difference between an "excellent" judge and one worth fighting to keep off the bench is defined by whatever you want to define it by. In which case, its a meaningless point since anyone of us can say the same thing. P.S. Explain how William Pryor and Charles Pickering are "excellent judges." Or for that matter, Clarence Thomas.
When did I say I wasn't pissed of at the antics of the Republicans on this issue? Indeed Thomas is not an excellent judge, and I feel his appointment is a direct result of the politicization that I am trying to be critical of.
That wasn't Bork's position on the Ninth Amendment. Judicial power dates back to Marbury v. Madison, and Bork wasn't talking about overthrowing it. He was talking about selectively using judicial power to uphold precedents he agreed with, and overturn those he didn't, with a minimum of fuss. He was Scalia before Scalia. Specifically, the right of privacy so detested by conservatives these days can be directly placed in the Ninth Amendment, Griswold or no Griswold. Bork found one of the Bill of Rights an inconvenience. If the Democrats nominate a judge who wants to completely repeal the Second Amendment, how long would he or she last?
I would agree that it would be wrong for Bork to selectively use the 9th ammendment to "selectively using judicial power to uphold precedents he agreed with, and overturn those he didn't," but I am not familiar with a case that he claimed the 9th ammendment should be used either way. Even many who support Roe and Griswold have problems with relying on the 9th ammendment. I think it is telling that you used the term "Judicial power" because that is what Bork fears. The unrestrained use of judicial power. Considering the fact that judges are appointed for life, it is something we should all fear.
Well, if its any solace, until NER comes out a labels you as a real dickweed, I may not agree with him for some time.
There are a lot of mediocre judges and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance?
Why all the hostility? If you have some type of history with NER that I'm not aware of, I apologize. I am a newby around here after all.