Justice, for the Next Supreme Court Justice

Posted by Buck68 on May 14th, 2010 filed in Uncategorized

by Buck68™, May 14th 2010
©2010 by Buck68™, all rites re-served. Each use whatsoever requires prior written permission from the author [email: abuck68@yahoo.com]

Oh, for a webpage that would gather documentation on a subject, rigorously footnoted for sources and context… and leave the loaded words, innuendo, and agendas out. What would such a place…enable? Not force, enable? It would enable the concept of ‘education’; specifically, any individual to educate…himself.

Now, logically, what is any organization that purports to ‘serve’, but does not provide information in such a manner, doing? Is it not saying “serve”, but serving itself rather than who it says it serves? Perhaps discriminating between an informer, a server, and a manipulator; based on comparing what they SAY with what they DO…might be useful? Hmmm, our “national educational experts” eliminated assessing WHAT THINKING SKILL on the SAT in 2005, calling it “too unfair”??? And, of course, whenever i even hear or feel “discrimination” I totally so know it’s so wrong. I must not ‘discriminate’ [tell the difference between A & B]!

But – do you yet comprehend, “enable discourse ‘on the merits’”? You know…the exercise of liberty by learning? You know, the opposite of ‘indoctrination’, ‘imaging’…all the synonyms of ‘manipulation’ and ‘imposition’?

Are you ‘feeling’ a ‘yes’, or a ba baaa baaaaaa, or a ‘fright & outrage’?

Compare: a “Nation of Cowards” needs goading with fright and outrage…by definition. A nation of individuals endowed with self-evident, inalienable “liberty”, recognizes the value of learning about any topic by the free exercise of ‘critical thinking skills’.

For example, an individual rationally interested in how Congress questions [considers] a Supreme Court nominee, especially given what Nominee Kagan has written on that process…would start with what?

Presently, a website just provided Kagan’s college thesis. This lone informative relay, contrasts how to the ‘marketing’ so far: opera, softball, sexuality, absence of judicial opinions…., why she’s The One…or Not The One.

It has been reported that Kagan has opined in the negative regarding the quality of past Congressional inquiries of Supreme Court nominees. If the nominee questioning is ‘so bad’…where are the fundamental questions? How about starting with ‘legal principles’?

Examples:

First, to the Constitutional purpose of “establishing justice”. Please, discriminate between “justice”, “our justice”, “social justice”, and how justice compares to “the ends justify the means”.

2-Explain your understanding of the concept of “settled law”; and, the basis of this concept in the Constitution; and, assess at least 1 example of what is ‘settled law’ and what is not.

3-Explain the current legal definition of when human life begins, applying the Constitution and laws, and identifying any conflicts or inadequacies in current law.

4-Compare and contrast the judicial concepts of [a] interpreting a ‘living Constitution’ to adapt to current cultural norms, and [b} follow the Constitution as written.

5-Explain and legally argue for and against the concept of stare decisis.

6-Explain the justice of and practical effect on the Supreme Court of selecting and confirming Nominees based on these criteria: defining "places" on the Supreme Court in terms of who created the opening; the 'leaning' or 'place on the political spectrum' of that Justice who left; the concept of Supreme Court 'balance'; Presidential nominations by the criterion of "who he wants"; and, nominations based on who can 'get confirmed'.

7-Explain how the Creator/God named in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, is declared the Ultimate Authority for all individual rights, which enables 'freedom of religion'; and, for our Independence and Constitution, which enables American citizens to follow our Laws regardless of their 'religion' or 'church'. Explain the effect on the justification for our Nation, our Constitution, individual rights, and our Laws IF...any law, policy, rule, or restriction "separates" or "denies" this Creator/God from our Nation [regardless of which or how many individuals' 'choice' of their personal 'beliefs'].

Why do this? Why first ‘ask’ about principles? Why not ‘just’ tell the nominee what she did, said, or inferred that each Confirmer feels is…right…or wrong? IOW, why shouldn’t each Confirmer inject his own prejudice, bias, agenda, feelings into this confirmation process? Everybody does it….

Yes, let’s play ‘gotcha’ again! It’s so exciting. Let’s ‘get’ someone? Let’s ‘prove my point’? Let’s image how she’s ‘on the right side’ …or ‘wrong side’. Everybody is ‘entertained’ in the fright, outrage, blame, demonizing game….

or…when have we gotten ourselves into a big enough pigsty mess, felt enough pain…become Cowardly enough… should we at last consider doing what any American citizen should have been doing all along… come what may?

Consider Martin Luther King’s application of Justice, which is a literal application of the contents of our Constitution:

Content of our Character, by fiat of our Attorney General: cowards all. Colors of our skin: what it’s always been…unless my color is whatever I feel…or what a Teller tells me.

NOW, is ‘the idea’ yet to “keep our Republic” by e pluribus unum? No unum, no Republic…just the power-grabbing celebration of “Die-versity” by My Ends Justify My Means…among which are ‘packing the Courts with my guys’.