Jeffrey Toobin: Judges ‘deranged’ by Obama hatred - Darius Dixon - POLITICO.com http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74864.html
...."He said he had “devoted” his career to trying prove that the line between law and politics is essentially nonexistent when it comes to divisive issues such as cases related to abortion and affirmative action. “These are essentially political decisions being made by individuals who wear black robes,” he said. “I think the more we recognize that and the more we eliminate this artificial line – this sort of idealistic but really meaningless line – between law and politics the better because that’s the way I think the world works.”....
RRD:So Brown was political?Can we ignore it then?Was Reed vs Reed political?Can we ignore it?Roe,Griswold,Lawrence all political?If these decisions have no basis in law,indeed if there IS NO LAW,just whatever the Judges say is the law,as Toobin seems to believe,why should we comply with Obamacare?For that matter why should the Military recognize Obama as the President?Why not live in a state of anarchy?I sometimes marvel at people like Toobin,Obama etal, both on the right and the left,
who issue these calls for ”deference”,and "restraint" from a body which owes deference only to the Constitution,whose role is not to defer to the other two branches,but to check them,and which is supposed to restrain the other two branches to bring them in line with the Constitution.”But the Court is wrong on X”....If the Court is wrong in a given case it is because it is not following the Constitution;the problem then is that the Court is not following the law,not that it is not "deferring" to Congress.And yes I understand that when many people speak of ”deference”,they mean ”deference to Congress's legitimate authority,and when they say "restraint",they mean that the Court should not strike down laws without reason,but many others speak of something called ”restraint" and "deference" the way Obama does when referring to decisions he dislikes;as out of context categorical imperatives.
...."He said he had “devoted” his career to trying prove that the line between law and politics is essentially nonexistent when it comes to divisive issues such as cases related to abortion and affirmative action. “These are essentially political decisions being made by individuals who wear black robes,” he said. “I think the more we recognize that and the more we eliminate this artificial line – this sort of idealistic but really meaningless line – between law and politics the better because that’s the way I think the world works.”....
RRD:So Brown was political?Can we ignore it then?Was Reed vs Reed political?Can we ignore it?Roe,Griswold,Lawrence all political?If these decisions have no basis in law,indeed if there IS NO LAW,just whatever the Judges say is the law,as Toobin seems to believe,why should we comply with Obamacare?For that matter why should the Military recognize Obama as the President?Why not live in a state of anarchy?I sometimes marvel at people like Toobin,Obama etal, both on the right and the left,
who issue these calls for ”deference”,and "restraint" from a body which owes deference only to the Constitution,whose role is not to defer to the other two branches,but to check them,and which is supposed to restrain the other two branches to bring them in line with the Constitution.”But the Court is wrong on X”....If the Court is wrong in a given case it is because it is not following the Constitution;the problem then is that the Court is not following the law,not that it is not "deferring" to Congress.And yes I understand that when many people speak of ”deference”,they mean ”deference to Congress's legitimate authority,and when they say "restraint",they mean that the Court should not strike down laws without reason,but many others speak of something called ”restraint" and "deference" the way Obama does when referring to decisions he dislikes;as out of context categorical imperatives.
No comments:
Post a Comment