Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

SUPREME COURT: Dowd’s histrionics partly true

Letter by Jean McGuire, University Place on April 5, 2012 at 10:39 am with 20 Comments »
April 5, 2012 12:01 pm

Re: “Impartiality of Supreme Court smothered by politics” (TNT, 4-5).

Most of Maureen Dowd’s histrionic tirade against the Supreme Court deserves no comment. Indeed, it deserved no publication.

Dowd comes close to the truth on one point, however. The court’s decisions (and its powers, by the way) are shaped by a “political handbook” of sorts. We call it the Constitution of the United States of America.

Leave a comment Comments → 20
  1. sandblower says:

    “….it deserved no publication.”
    And your Pulitzer-Prize was awarded when?
    Simply admit you are an extreme right wing republican and we will all understand.

  2. A Puklitzer Prize neither requires nor implies any expertise in the realm of jurisprudence.

    We all understand that Dodd is an extreme left-wing Democrat; therefore, we expect nothing but leftist drivel from her–and get it without fail.

  3. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Actually, she got it right on another point as well:

    President 0bama never should have waded into the health care thicket back when the economy was teetering.

    Other than that, Jean’s right; not worth a comment.

  4. Fibonacci says:

    I do love how Republikans look at court decisions two different ways. If the decision goes the way they want they they wave the Constitution. If it goes against what they want they rave about judges “legislating from the bench, or “going against the will of the people’.

  5. Pacman33 says:

    Peter Wehner simply nails it:

    “Dowd’s columns are, without exception, an intellectual content-free zone. They are mood-pieces, a window into the unstable emotional state of liberal east coast elitists. Her words are unburdened by facts, reason, or analysis.

    That isn’t a crime, and it even serves a purpose of sorts. But she’s impossible to take seriously.”

  6. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Fib, it seems to me the Dems are the ones doing the whining right now. It also seems one could substitute “R’s” for “D’s” in your post. No equivalency here, just obviously interchangeable parts when the outcome suits, or when it sucks. Just depends on your point of view.

  7. Fibonacci says:

    I guess I am referring to each time Timmy EyeMan has had an initiative ruled unconstitutional and I hear over and over again that the judges are legislating from the bench and overruling the will of the people.

  8. averageJoseph says:

    Pulitzer Prize, Noble Peace Prize LMAO. Did you know Obama got a Nobel?

  9. Dave98373 says:

    Bah-bye Obamacare…at least be a good loser. Sucks to have to follow that pesky piece of paper called the United States Constitution. Perhaps if you get re-elected again by the many illegal voters out there may you try and circumvent the will of the people once again. Until then, you come across as a whiny two year old who pouts when they can’t get there way.

  10. If memory serves, Eyman’s initiatives were struck down for reasons of clarity, or lack thereof, not because they were unconstitutional in principle.

    The case before SCOTUS involves legislation by the U.S. Congress. In that respect it differs from Eyman’s initiatives, which were voted on by the public. Furthermore, the issue is whether Obamacare is constitutional in principle–whether Congress may mandate that citizens purchase anything as a consequence of their mere existence.

    There is a difference in criticizing the courts for rejecting tax limiatations passed by the public and in criticizing the courts for daring to fulfill their legal and rightful function. The latter strikes at the very root of our political system. We can survive without tax relief. We cannot without judicial review.

  11. Velmak – there is a lot of difference between judicial review and judicial dictates. (AKA judicial activism)

  12. sandblower says:

    Peter Wehner is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), a neoconservative-led organization.
    Those are the guys who got us into Iraq. One should be careful with one’s referrals. No surprise coming from pac33.

  13. xring, I presume you are suggesting SCOTUS would be engaging in judicial activism if it struck down Obmacare. Activism has to do with making law from the bench. Striking dowm bad law is clearly a legitimate fucntion of the Court. How striking down such law is activism escapes me entirely.

  14. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Fib, in the case of our state, justices are elected. And, also in the case of our state, we have nine counties that vote 51 – 70% Democrat – including 3 of the top five whose population totals, alone, exceed the total for the remaining 36. But in case that’s not enough of a tilt, 6 of the top ten are also in the 51 – 70% “D” category. These nine Democrat-leaning counties effectively control the executive, legislative, and judicial branches os state government, and thus (sadly) the political make-up, likely forever condemning our state to its current “blue” status.

    The result of this is that we have overwhelmingly liberal representation in state courts. So in our case, would you agree there is much judicial activism, and that you likely have no problem with it?

    Remember, a vast majority of cases decided at the state level never make it to federal appellate courts – never mind the SCOTUS. It seems to me that most judicial activism is found at state and local levels.

  15. Frankenchrist says:

    It’s all lining up perfectly for the GOP. Rick Santorum as Secretary of Islamic persecution. Mismell Bachmann as Secretary of Suppression of Homosexual Tendencies. Vermin Cain as Secretary or Pepperoni Management. Newt Gingrich as Secretary of Monotony. Rick Perry as Secretary of Prescription Drug Mismanagement, Ron Paul as Secretary of Narcotics Distribution. Now all Willard has to do is peel of another twenty percent of the female vote and Hispanic vote and we can take this country back!

  16. We all understand

    Third Person Effect

  17. Velmark – judicial activism includes both making laws from the bench AND making decisions based on political or personal beliefs rather than on accepted legal standards.

  18. averageJoseph says:

    So Obama is wrong.

  19. xring, your definition of activism certainly fits well with the Roe v. Wade decsion, which found a right to privacy in the “emanations” and “penumbra” of the 14th Amendment–in other words, in the personal beliefs of the majority

    What “accepted legal standards” would SCOTUS be violating if it struck down Obamacare?

  20. averageJoseph says:

    This should be fun, good question velmak.

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0