NINOMANIA
:: A constitutional law blog by Scalia/Thomas fan David M. Wagner, M.A., J.D., Research Fellow, National Legal Foundation, and Teacher, Veritas Preparatory Academy. Opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not reflect those of the NLF or Veritas. :: bloghome | E-mail me ::
:: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 ::
Just tuned in to the hearings on Lady Kaga (blogger David Lat's term) on CSPAN -- and have been reminded why it's such a better use of my time to blog up Supreme Court opinions than Supreme Court hearings.
What kind of opposition party do the Republicans think they're being, when all they do is orate? The most radical nominee any Democratic president ever dreamed of sending up would have nothing to worry about as long as all he/she has to do is to sit there and look grave while drawling Claghorns make speeches and let the viewing audience know that they have cute staffers.
Coburn -- who at least doesn't have a southern accent, thanks be to almighty God -- had a great point when he asked Kagan whether the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to dictate people's dietary habits. She parried it artfully by saying that would be a dumb law, and -- good pretense of judicial restraint here -- a Justice shouldn't strike down a dumb but constitutional law just because it's dumb. Yes, that's what Justice Thomas said in Lawrence v. Texas -- in dissent.
Needless to say, Coburn didn't pick up on that. Neither did he pick up on what he could have been expected to pick up on, namely, his own question. Rather than come back with "Yes, but would it be constitutional?" he picked up a copy of something venerable-looking (could have been a very fat Constitution or a very thin Federalist Papers, he didn't say) and started in on a 4th of July speech. Did he ever force an answer to his question? If so, the YouTube clip I saw ran out before he did.
I've already specified why I'm not going to oppose Kagan actively (see post of June 19). But even if I wanted to, what would be the point, with an opposition party as dim and listless as this? When the Democrats opposed Bork (admittedly, with a majority in the Senate, but also with a lot more brains and determination) they asked him brief questions -- and let him give long, scholarly answers from which soundbites could be chopped and clipped for the next day's outraged headlines and anguished commercials. That's the way it's frickin' done, people, when you're both capable and serious, which you're obviously not.
Then --- Leahy talking about "neither right nor left" and how he's glad he voted for Stevens and O'Connor even though "they were appointed by Republican Presidents" -- would have made me visit the salon of Monsieur Ralph by now, if I'd had eaten any thing since 7 am. Adjournment is your friend.
:: David M. Wagner 5:30 PM [+] ::
...
What kind of opposition party do the Republicans think they're being, when all they do is orate? The most radical nominee any Democratic president ever dreamed of sending up would have nothing to worry about as long as all he/she has to do is to sit there and look grave while drawling Claghorns make speeches and let the viewing audience know that they have cute staffers.
Coburn -- who at least doesn't have a southern accent, thanks be to almighty God -- had a great point when he asked Kagan whether the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to dictate people's dietary habits. She parried it artfully by saying that would be a dumb law, and -- good pretense of judicial restraint here -- a Justice shouldn't strike down a dumb but constitutional law just because it's dumb. Yes, that's what Justice Thomas said in Lawrence v. Texas -- in dissent.
Needless to say, Coburn didn't pick up on that. Neither did he pick up on what he could have been expected to pick up on, namely, his own question. Rather than come back with "Yes, but would it be constitutional?" he picked up a copy of something venerable-looking (could have been a very fat Constitution or a very thin Federalist Papers, he didn't say) and started in on a 4th of July speech. Did he ever force an answer to his question? If so, the YouTube clip I saw ran out before he did.
I've already specified why I'm not going to oppose Kagan actively (see post of June 19). But even if I wanted to, what would be the point, with an opposition party as dim and listless as this? When the Democrats opposed Bork (admittedly, with a majority in the Senate, but also with a lot more brains and determination) they asked him brief questions -- and let him give long, scholarly answers from which soundbites could be chopped and clipped for the next day's outraged headlines and anguished commercials. That's the way it's frickin' done, people, when you're both capable and serious, which you're obviously not.
Then --- Leahy talking about "neither right nor left" and how he's glad he voted for Stevens and O'Connor even though "they were appointed by Republican Presidents" -- would have made me visit the salon of Monsieur Ralph by now, if I'd had eaten any thing since 7 am. Adjournment is your friend.
:: David M. Wagner 5:30 PM [+] ::
...
