Reply
Thu 20 Feb, 2003 10:59 am
Well, they would if they had any consistency:
One of the Democratic criticisms of Miguel Estrada's nomination is his adamant refusal to answer questions about case law and judicial reasoning. To hear Estrada tell it, he has no opinion on any court case ever decided. Slate's Michael Kinsley has compared it to a criminal "pleading the Fifth."
The Senate has burned by this sort of stonewalling before. Clarence Thomas claimed with a straight face to have no opinion on Roe v Wade, and further claimed that he had never even talked about the case - even though it was decided while he was in law school.
So what do other Supreme Court judges think about silent nominees? Is Miguel Estrada's mind open, or is it vacant?
"A judge's lack of predisposition regarding the relevant legal issues in a case has never been thought a necessary component of equal justice, and with good reason. For one thing, it is virtually impossible to find a judge who does not have preconceptions about the law. ... Indeed, even if it were possible to select judges who did not have preconceived views on legal issues, it would hardly be desirable to do so. And since avoiding judicial preconceptions on legal issues is neither possible nor desirable, pretending otherwise by attempting to preserve the "appearance" of that type of impartiality can hardly be a compelling state interest."
Justice Antonin Scalia, Republican Party of Minnesota v White, 536 US 765 (2002)
"Since most Justices come to this bench no earlier than their middle years, it would be unusual if they had not by that time formulated at least some tentative notions that would influence them in their interpretation of the sweeping clauses of the Constitution and their interaction with one another. It would be not merely unusual, but extraordinary, if they had not at least given opinions as to constitutional issues in their previous legal careers. ... Proof that a Justice's mind at the time he joined the Court was a complete tabula rasa in the area of constitutional adjudication would be evidence of lack of qualification, not lack of bias."
Justice William Rehnquist, Laird v. Tatum, 409 U.S. 824 (1972)
I think its really important to hear about his views on roe v. wade 'cause the balance is precariously close to being tipped in the direction of roe v. wade being overturned.
My feelings and thoughts about this are of course judges have knowledge and life experiences which lead them to have personal opinion's they are human. But they are trained professionals as lawyers, judges on lower courts, and often as law professors to rise above their personal opinions. That is why they, the Appellate Court judges and the Supremes, read (as do their clerks) prior decisions, study the case before them, listen to oral argument, and read briefs.
So far in the history of the US this, the 3rd branch of our government, has done well by the people. Not agreeing with a decision is not in my opinion a bases to condemn any Court. When they have goofed Dred Scott being a big one they have reversed. When they shine as in Brown v. Board of Education, Miranda, or Roe v. Wade they insure the people the freedom we are guaranteed by the Constitution.
An appointment by a President of a judge he (maybe some day a she) thinks will support his political leaning's it is not a foregone conclusion. Warren of course comes to mind and Soutier(sp). It is always a roll of the dice once a lawyer reached the point of consideration for the federal bench.
Estrada's refusal to answer questions may be wrong headed advice from the White House or his personal view that he prefers not to judge a decision of the past nor commit to a narrow position of what how he may use his judgment in the future. I believe that the Senate should consider his personal legal back ground not what he might do in the future.
Having said all that I must admit I like lawyers and trust them. And I like them for several reasons: 1) Anyone who makes it through law school and passes the bar has a lot of horses (brain power); 2) argument and debate or just that they are not upset by it and when it is over it is over; and 3) lawyers are like cops everyone complains about them but when you need one you need one. My personal experience working for lawyers and being represented by lawyers has always been a highly satisfactory experience.
For Thomas to claim he NEVER SPOKE about Roe vs. Wade is incredible, and is probably perjury and grounds for impeachment as soon as witnesses turn up.
It's easy for Thomas, he does ever speak the truth - and must be told what to say; the Bush mold, if you will!
Alberto Gonzales plays the race card:
USA Today
Actually, Clarence Thomas did not claim with a straight face that "he had no opinion with regard to Roe vs. Wade.
That is an unfortunate distortion.
HIs biographer, Andrew Peyton Thomas, (no relation) in his biography "Clarence Thomas-P. 377
quote
"Thomas had not probably lied under oath: there could be no perjury prosecutions for his answers. Later Thomas critics would distort his testimony and allege he had denied ever "discussing" Roe vs. Wade with anybody.
He did not say this and he would have perjured himself if he had. He was careful to say he had never "debated" the case--in other words, discussed it with a person of opposing viewpoint. No witnesses would emerge in the hearings or subsequent decade to contradict this narrow claim. He also denied having an opinon on Roe "this day". This was a subjective matter that could not be disproved."
It appears to me that people who are quite willing to excoriate either Clarence Thomas or Bill Clinton whould study carefully exactly what they did say before jumping to conclusions.
Welcome to A2K, bocdaver, and thanks for reviving this topic almost a year to the day after the last response.
(Thank goodness in the intervening months we have not had have to worry about the esteemed Señor Estrada becoming a federal judge.)
To your barely tangential point...that is a simply extraordinary parsing of words up there:
You, quoting biographer Thomas about Justice Thomas, wrote:He was careful to say he had never "debated" the case--in other words, discussed it with a person of opposing viewpoint. No witnesses would emerge in the hearings or subsequent decade to contradict this narrow claim. He also denied having an opinon on Roe "this day". This was a subjective matter that could not be disproved."
That's just the sort of straight-up talk we regrettably get these days from our elected and selected representatives, isn't it?
Such as: "weapons of mass destruction program-related activities"; and to be fair and balanced: "It depends on what the definition of the word 'is' is."
Oh, and about this:
You wrote:It appears to me that people who are quite willing to excoriate either Clarence Thomas or Bill Clinton whould (sic) study carefully exactly what they did say before jumping to conclusions.
Careful with the drive-by
ad hominems. This isn't that kind of forum.
But in all fairness PD what bocdaver says is true, and this is the job that lawyers are good at. It was been pointed out by many people of all ilks that it is very unlikely that Bill Clinton would have been defeated had he gone to court. He desired not to drag the nation through any more so he fell on his sword, realizing that history would show on whose side the joke lies
And, Clarence (though not very smart) was skilled in the art of confusing the meaning of "is"
BTW bocdaver, welcome aboard................
Note that I am not disagreeing with bocdaver, Bill.
(Why does an image of a Tuscan cat keep coming to my mind's eye?)
Yeah, I caught that tooooooo - I was just trying to create a good base for my argument
Those who are familiar with the life of Clarence Thomas do not fall into the trap of believing everything that his detractors say about him.
I recommend the book, "Clarence Thomas" to anyone who wishes to know the facts about Thomas.
One of the myths that Thomas' enemies attempted to propogate was the absurdity that Thomas was stupid and somehow unfit for the post on the Supreme Court.
Thomas's enemies overlook the fact that he graduated from what is arguably considered the best law school in the country, namely, Yale Law School.
Furthermore, Thomas is, in the book mentioned above, favorably compared with the "smartest woman in the world"- Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The comparison reads:
"On the other hand, Thomas' academic performance was very similar to that of Clinton's classmate and future wife, Hillary Rodham, who wasn't even the best woman student from Wellesley in her class" in the words of Guido Calabresi, a law professor and later dean of Yale Law School. Calabresi observed that Thomas and Rodham "were both excellent students and had the same kind of reputation" among the faculty."
If I hadn't read the book and read only "The Nation" and "The Village Voice", I would have come to the conclusion that Thomas was almost idiotic.
You can be smart and still an idiot. Thomas is the best example...........
Einstein was a genius, but had no common sense
No, you can't be smart and still be an Idiot.
Smart-"clever or bright"
Idiot-"A person with subnormal intellectual development"
How does that explain an idiot savant?
Did you know Albert Einstein couldn't -- some say wouldn't -- tie his shoelaces?
(It was said that he found many of life's repetitive tasks boring, but some said he simply never bothered to learn.)
Far be it from me to call Einstein stupid...
All of us have known people exceptionally brilliant in one area and all but incompetent in others.
Are they both smart and stupid at the same time?
I don't think that is either an unfair or inaccurate assessment.
There is a lot of rumor about Einstein. Most of it is untrue and completely fabricated. We fear those we do not understand and we try to cut them down because we fear them.
First of all, Einstein's biographer, Ronald W. Clark writes that
Einstein was the practical bohemian, the man who genuinely acted the way he did because his mind and time were devoted to essentials.
Einstein said:
"We are slaves of bathrooms, Frigidaires, cars, radios and millions of other things."
Idiot Savant-
You would not want to be one. An idiot savant is a person whose achievement is confined to a very limited area and who show very little understanding of their ability because of average or subnormal intelligence.
There is a conceit in America among those who pridde themselves with-"I'm not good at book larning, but I have a lot of common sense" as if they knew what common sense really was and as if common sense always and at all times really trumped "book larning"
That is just the common man reacting to superior intellect and attempting to put it down.
Can a person be smart and stupid at the same time?
It depends on your definition of smart and stupid and the areas in which you apply the terms.
HOWEVER, it is clear and has been proven that a person who does well in one school subject tends to do well in others. IQ scores correlate strongly with school test results.
Can people be smart in one area and stupid in another. Yes.
A person can be quite good in math( an intellectual skill) and stupid with regard to his vertical jump( a motor skill.
However, people with high IQ scores have as much common sense as other people with lower IQ scores and probablky more.
The old wives tale --"He's really bright with the books but has no common sense" is just that- An old wives tale, constructed to assuage the feelings of the guy wiht the 90 IQ who knows he will never match the verbaal and math ability of the person with the 120 IQ.
Quote:Can a person be smart and stupid at the same time?
It depends on your definition of smart and stupid and the areas in which you apply the terms.
That was my only point.
It seems to contradict this:
Quote:No, you can't be smart and still be an Idiot.
boc, have you been here before under another handle?
I have a son who is a certifiable genius and he is an idiot.................
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace