FLASHBACK ... Kristol called for 2006 and 2008 to be "a referendum" on makeup on Supreme Court
May 01, 2009 2:17 pm ET
From the January 29, 2006, broadcast of Fox News Sunday:
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
That's right Bill, the people of this country took a dump on the Republican Party in 2006 and 2008 and to use a famous Rove-Bush line, "elections have consequences". Your yogels in the Senate don't have the numbers or the testes to filibuster anyone Obama nominates. You know why Bill? Because of the 2006 and 2008 elections.
I want a Supreme Court Justice who...
1. Is objective and fair, and renders opinions consistent not only with the letter of the Law, but with the spirit of it also (as opposed to decisions that seem at odds with not so much the letter of the Law, but at odds with the intention of the Lawmaker: that is what is meant by the spirit of the Law, it means the intention of the one who wrote the Law), and who has no real interest in any case before them, except the interest of Justice. As a matter of fact, if I could make a statue depicting what I just described as a requirement for a Judge, it might be a statue of someone holding the scales of fairness and Justice, and holding also a book containing the letter of the Law (and as best as we can interpret, the intention of the Lawmaker also), and this statue of a person holding the scales in one hand and the book of Law in the other, would be blindfolded also, signifying their disinterest and even ignorance of personal interests of the parties in the case, and aware only of those things held within their grip and their power: Justice and the Law. I would place such a statue as that, at the entrance of the Court... the person so depicted might even be a woman, but that's not really the point now is it.
2. Has a lengthy record of experience as a Judge. Knock off this recent crap of presenting persons to the Senate (for their consent) who do not have a substantial enough record on which to judge their qualifications, in particular the qualification listed above: for it is only in time and over many cases, would we ever really know, if the nominee in question were not really fair and Just, and not consistent with the Law, and not blind to all personal interests.
3. Cannot be an agent for business interests: this is the singular disqualification most often possessed these days, by the persons who are put forward to sit on our Federal bench, the SCOTUS included. And far more often than not, those business agents are seated, and are not disqualified: and the reason they are able to sneak past the Senate's watch, is because they (the business agents pretending to be Judges) are put forward in a cloud of various social and even religious interests, and in that stupid smoke do Senate Democrats get lost, and oppose the nominee based on those stupid social and religious things (which again are just a smokescreen), and in failing to see the nominee as in truth being a business agent, they fail the American People by forwarding those agents onto our Federal bench...
And the conflict of interests that follow, and the twisting of the Law and the misinterpretation of it's spirit (it's intention), and the siding with one or another business interest in the rendering of decisions, is all enough to make Justice to seem nothing more than a word...
And to make Justices seem nothing more than business agents in black robes.
It's enough to make even a statue cry, and crumble away at the entrance to the Court.
How sad and myopic that, according to reich-wingers, the "constitutional direction" equates to conservatism.
I highly value the opinions of those who have never been correct once. I put it right beside the recycling bin, nestled in the garbage bags.
Randy
This guy is proof that the right wingnut media has no need for truth, accuracy or integrity. How else to explain his always getting a platform to use yet he always gets everything wrong?