Pickering Speaks
Charles Pickering, one of the Bush appointees to the Appelate court that was filibustered and then seated to the bench in a recess appointment, has retired after his year of service. He also is releasing a book, Supreme Chaos: The Politics of Judicial Confirmation and the Culture War. John Hawkins over at RightWingNews conducted a very thorough interview with the judge and I felt it worth linking.
Yes, Pickering is trying to sell a book and that's obvious. It also sounds like it might be a good read. However, I didn't find that it detracted from the quality of his interview or his views on the Constitution. It's easy to see why such a man as Pickering was so vehemently and viciously attacked by the Left, especially with crazed views like these...
I like to think the judges who have the responsibility of their being impartial are going to have some intellectual integrity. Now is this an absolute sure thing, they couldn’t get around it? No, nothing in life is, but I like the proposal that I make a lot better than I do hand wringing saying there’s nothing we can do about an activist court.
...in our Constitution that was adopted and the people ratified it, that became a contract between the people and their government and we lived under that until 1971 which is almost 200 years. It was amended some 16 times, an average of once every 10 to 11 years. From 1933 to 1971 it was amended 7 times for an average of once every 5 to 6 years. Now, since 1971 far left groups, radical groups, learned it was easier to convince 5 members of the Supreme Court to change the Constitution than to convince the voters and their elected representatives to change it.
We have not had a constitutional amendment that has been initiated and adopted since 1971. That’s totally contrary to our past history and these were substantive amendments. They had to do with abolishing slavery, providing what states could not deprive its citizens of due process, it gave the right to vote to women, it gave the right to vote to 18 years olds. These were hot-button issues that we dealt with according to the amendment process.
It’s only been in the last 30 years that those who have a liberal philosophy say that the Constitution is too sacred to be amended and it is too difficult and too cumbersome to do so when it wasn’t too cumbersome for 170 years. They still don’t think it’s too sacred for judges to amend it or change it. But to me it’s the height of arrogance to say that we’ve got to have 5 super legislators sitting on the bench changing the Constitution. That’s not democratic. It turns the principle of, “We the people,” upside down. It turns it on its head.
There's much more, but I don't want to copy John's whole interview. Visit his site and click some blogads for goodness' sake. Returning to the text, though, I suppose it's easy to see how a man with such "radical views" was so feared to take the bench by the Left. The above basically lays bare why they were so eager to see such a man as him never decide a case that might negatively affect their interests or agenda. And if they were so hot and bothered about this one old man taking the bench, what does that say about their opposition to so many other candidates? Did you or I vote for the minority to control the Courts?
Charles Pickering, one of the Bush appointees to the Appelate court that was filibustered and then seated to the bench in a recess appointment, has retired after his year of service. He also is releasing a book, Supreme Chaos: The Politics of Judicial Confirmation and the Culture War. John Hawkins over at RightWingNews conducted a very thorough interview with the judge and I felt it worth linking.
Yes, Pickering is trying to sell a book and that's obvious. It also sounds like it might be a good read. However, I didn't find that it detracted from the quality of his interview or his views on the Constitution. It's easy to see why such a man as Pickering was so vehemently and viciously attacked by the Left, especially with crazed views like these...
I like to think the judges who have the responsibility of their being impartial are going to have some intellectual integrity. Now is this an absolute sure thing, they couldn’t get around it? No, nothing in life is, but I like the proposal that I make a lot better than I do hand wringing saying there’s nothing we can do about an activist court.
...in our Constitution that was adopted and the people ratified it, that became a contract between the people and their government and we lived under that until 1971 which is almost 200 years. It was amended some 16 times, an average of once every 10 to 11 years. From 1933 to 1971 it was amended 7 times for an average of once every 5 to 6 years. Now, since 1971 far left groups, radical groups, learned it was easier to convince 5 members of the Supreme Court to change the Constitution than to convince the voters and their elected representatives to change it.
We have not had a constitutional amendment that has been initiated and adopted since 1971. That’s totally contrary to our past history and these were substantive amendments. They had to do with abolishing slavery, providing what states could not deprive its citizens of due process, it gave the right to vote to women, it gave the right to vote to 18 years olds. These were hot-button issues that we dealt with according to the amendment process.
It’s only been in the last 30 years that those who have a liberal philosophy say that the Constitution is too sacred to be amended and it is too difficult and too cumbersome to do so when it wasn’t too cumbersome for 170 years. They still don’t think it’s too sacred for judges to amend it or change it. But to me it’s the height of arrogance to say that we’ve got to have 5 super legislators sitting on the bench changing the Constitution. That’s not democratic. It turns the principle of, “We the people,” upside down. It turns it on its head.
There's much more, but I don't want to copy John's whole interview. Visit his site and click some blogads for goodness' sake. Returning to the text, though, I suppose it's easy to see how a man with such "radical views" was so feared to take the bench by the Left. The above basically lays bare why they were so eager to see such a man as him never decide a case that might negatively affect their interests or agenda. And if they were so hot and bothered about this one old man taking the bench, what does that say about their opposition to so many other candidates? Did you or I vote for the minority to control the Courts?
posted by Rob Beck | 8:14 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home