Supreme Court Focus of 2008 Election
 |
James Joyner | Thursday, July 3, 2008 |
The NYT editorial board want you to know that they’re very disappointed in the Roberts Court, particularly its upholding of Indiana’s law requiring would-be voters to be able they are who they claim to be, allowing Kentucky to continue using lethal injection for convicted murderers who’ve exhausted seventeen years of appeals, and its ruling that the 2nd Amendment applies in DC. And, while they’re pleased with the string of decisions ruling accused terrorists have rights and sparing the lives of those who rape eight-year-olds, they note that many of those decisions were 5-4.
They conclude,
The court was teetering on the brink in this term. Voters should keep that firmly in mind when they go to the polls in November.
I suspect John McCain will make exactly that case, despite disagreeing with the NYT on most of the issues at hand. It could be a persuasive argument.
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia.
Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
- Supreme Court Made Supreme Error in Child Rape Decision
- Jindal Signs Chemical Castration Bill
- California Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban
- Supreme Court as a Voting Issue
- SCOTUS Bans Death Penalty for Child Rape
- Supreme Court Upholds Voter ID Law
- More on the AKP Ruling in Turkey
- Sorry, I just remembered . . . I am armed
- AKP Escapes Ban (Barely)
- Jefferson ‘Wins’ Supreme Court Case
- OTB Latenight - Jim Croce
- Caption Contest Winners
- What’s the Opposite of Schadenfreude?
- Posse Comitatus? Its a Stupid Law Anyways
- Obama’s Short National Security Team
- Wire Politics
- 10 Funniest Political Quotes Of 2008 -
- Memeorandum Beats Google News
- US in Recession Since December 2007
- Sex Offender Registry Stupidity
There are multiple conflicts about the courts, progressives vs. conservatives being the one you hear most about. More important in my view is the conflict between doing justice and interpreting the law.
Is the marked culture of zealous advocacy that prevails in the legal profession nowadays compatible with interpreting the law? I have my doubts. What we're seeing from both liberal and conservatives on the SCOTUS seems to me to be the former: making your decision and then finding legal justification for it.
Drawing judges from the ranks of attorneys isn't the only way of organizing such things. In some places lawyers go to law school and judges go to judge school and, with the increasing complexity and resultant specialization of the modern world, I think we should consider reforms of this sort.
Comments are Closed
