Casual Observation

11 Comments

1. 

   seabe on August 5, 2010 at 9:39 am

   Yeah, I can’t imagine that, actually. The guy is a creationist, he opposed Miranda, and claimed that suspects aren’t innocent of crimes. The dude’s a fruit loop.

   • 

     BooMan on August 5, 2010 at 9:58 am

     He’s also looked at more pornography than any man living.  

     • 

       Heart of the Rockies on August 5, 2010 at 10:21 am

       Are we talking about Walker or Meese?

       • 

         BooMan on August 5, 2010 at 10:28 am

         Who do you think?

         • 

           Heart of the Rockies on August 5, 2010 at 11:20 am

           From your sentence construction, it wasn’t clear.  

2. 

   sjct on August 5, 2010 at 9:56 am

   Under the heading of Be Careful What You Pray For: The Re-Thugs wanted judges who would adhere to a “strict interpretation” of the Constitution and, by golly, that’s what they got. Seems they should have studied it and realized what a liberal, enlightened document it is.

3. 

   mainsailset on August 5, 2010 at 9:58 am

   The bottom line is this peculiar concept of divine forgiveness. For some reason it seems to grant this ability to not just walk moral lines but jump right over them, embrace them and taunt the world only to turn and repent, be forgiven & meanwhile the garbage of the act is still left on the street.

   God’s weakest link is religion.

   • 

     Heart of the Rockies on August 5, 2010 at 10:20 am

     One reason (of many) that I am not religious, formally or informally. I cannot understand why a torturer and serial killer can say he/she believes in a savior (I don’t think repentance is even necessary, just belief) and go to some kind of heaven, but a person who’s lived an upright and moral life and doesn’t confess such a belief, let alone repent, goes to some kind of hell.

     • 

       mainsailset on August 5, 2010 at 6:58 pm

       I agree completely; unless of course heaven is populated by evangelicals and hell gets the Rolling Stones…(depending on your definition of an upstanding life!)

4. 

   Mac G on August 5, 2010 at 11:21 am

   Does it seem judges appointed by Republicans seem to burn their base more than Democratic judges? I hope that this does not mean that there is some payback coming up soon for Dems.

   • 

     nonynony on August 5, 2010 at 11:35 am

     Does it seem judges appointed by Republicans seem to burn their base more than Democratic judges?

     Depends on what you mean by “burning the base”.  Most judges appointed tend to be pro-corporation and don’t have a vested interest in culture war issues – and that goes for both GOP nominees and Democratic nominees.  On issues they don’t care about results tend to come down to how well the lawyers actually perform in arguing the case.

     The reason why Republican-appointed judges tend to seem to be antagonistic to the Culture Warrior base of the GOP is because the Culture Warriors do not generally have the law on their side and they don’t seem to know how to fight a legal case.  Read the cursory summary of the ruling by Dahlia Lithwick in Slate and you’ll see this:

     Had the proponents of Prop 8 made even a minimal effort to put on a case, to track down real experts, to do more than try to assert their way to legal victory, this would have been a closer case. But faced with one team that mounted a serious effort and another team that did little more than fire up their big, gay boogeyman screensaver for two straight weeks, it wasn’t much of a fight. Judge Walker scolds them at the outset for promising in their trial brief to prove that same-sex marriage would “effect some twenty-three harmful consequences” and then putting on almost no case.

     And this:

     Walker notes that the plaintiffs presented eight lay witnesses and nine expert witnesses, including historians, economists, psychologists, and a political scientist. Walker lays out their testimony in detail. Then he turns to the proponents’ tactical decision to withdraw several of their witnesses, claiming “extreme concern about their personal safety” and unwillingness to testify if there were to be “recording of any sort.” Even when it was determined that there would be no recording, counsel declined to call them. They were left with two trial witnesses, one of whom, David Blankenhorn, founder and president of the Institute for American Values, the judge found “lacks the qualifications to offer opinion testimony and, in any event, failed to provide cogent testimony in support of proponent’s factual assertions.” Blankenhorn’s credentials, methodology, lack of peer-reviewed studies, and general shiftiness on cross examination didn’t impress Walker. And once he was done with Blankenhorn, he turned to the only other witness–Kenneth P. Miller–who testified only to the limited question of the plaintiffs’ political power. Walker wasn’t much more impressed by Miller, giving his opinions “little weight.”

     The lawyers for the pro Prop-8 side put on a sideshow run out of a clown car.  They didn’t have facts on their side to show a compelling state interest in discriminating against gays so they rolled out the sideshow to distract from it.

     I can only imagine what was going through their heads – if I want to credit their lawyers with having brains (and overestimating your opposition is better than underestimating them, I guess) I’d suggest that they want to force this to the Supreme Court and so they didn’t argue their best case, knowing that they have 4-5 sympathetic justices on the SC (and that by pushing this case national, they can gin up more scare tactics on donors to squeeze more money out of the rubes).

     OTOH, they might just be stupid.  Like the legal team that mounted the Kitzmiller v. Dover case seemed to be.