tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post112189916588537850..comments2024-03-06T03:15:58.539-05:00Comments on <b>THE NEW REFORM CLUB</b>: Call Me Dr. SunshineHunter Bakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1121979955766077352005-07-21T17:05:00.000-04:002005-07-21T17:05:00.000-04:00TVD, it is a joke and one that proves far too much...TVD, it is a joke and one that proves far too much for the type of reasoning the left puts forward for bringing foreign law into the interpretation of our constitution.Hunter Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1121975239749835072005-07-21T15:47:00.000-04:002005-07-21T15:47:00.000-04:00Well, maybe it wasn't a joke. Peace, I'm out.Well, maybe it wasn't a joke. Peace, I'm out.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1121948569071784502005-07-21T08:22:00.000-04:002005-07-21T08:22:00.000-04:00I can't see how. What would be the basis for weig...I can't see how. What would be the basis for weighting French law more than Chinese law when the Chinese have a far larger population than even the entire European Union?Hunter Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1121935735685465862005-07-21T04:48:00.000-04:002005-07-21T04:48:00.000-04:00I took that as a joke, James.The point as I see it...I took that as a joke, James.<BR/><BR/>The point as I see it is that international law might be fine for influencing our own future legislative debates, but is entirely inappropriate for the interpretation of our existing Constitution.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1121922800190174932005-07-21T01:13:00.000-04:002005-07-21T01:13:00.000-04:00That's a completely spurious and intellectually di...That's a completely spurious and intellectually dishonest comparison, and I think you know it.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1121911435492348452005-07-20T22:03:00.000-04:002005-07-20T22:03:00.000-04:00What Dr. Zycher is talking about is the trend of t...What Dr. Zycher is talking about is the trend of the current court to consult foreign law when making decisions. This does not refer to treaties. It has long been common for the court to look at the practice of the U.S. states, but this move to be openly influenced by foreign law is completely unacceptable. Foreign law is irrelevant to ours. Besides, how would you choose? China has the biggest/second biggest population in the world. Should we follow them on disallowing internet porn? Hmmmmmm.Hunter Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1121911367198381332005-07-20T22:02:00.000-04:002005-07-20T22:02:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Hunter Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1121903597486095482005-07-20T19:53:00.000-04:002005-07-20T19:53:00.000-04:00He's talking about the fact that we're like one of...He's talking about the fact that we're like one of three countries that still executes people for crimes committed before they were legal adults. Or, more specifically, that because the majority of Americans and the majority of the world think that's effed up, Kennedy thought that was a pretty good reason to knock it off.<BR/><BR/>Man, even Iran stopped doing that crap. We're behind IRAN. Does no one else see the problem here??James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1121902827722328662005-07-20T19:40:00.000-04:002005-07-20T19:40:00.000-04:001) That's a matter of speculation. Some have said ...1) That's a matter of speculation. Some have said that he is a Thomas in Rehnquist's clothing. Brian C. Anderson of the Manhattan Institute thinks he'll be rather Thomas like.<BR/><BR/>2) Bush has been very careful to use the "strictly interpret" trope as an assurance that Roberts will not "legislate from the bench." But his judicial record is slim, so who knows.<BR/><BR/>3) Meh. Who cares?<BR/><BR/>4) I thought it was a particularly smart maneuver. Roberts appears reasonable and, if the Democrats move to oppose him without a strong objection to latch on to, they'll appear to merely be opposing him for opposition's sake.<BR/><BR/>I had an editor who tried to make me spell "woman" and "human" with a "y." Once. Ten years ago. I think you'll find that most feminists older than 20 have grown up quite a bit.<BR/><BR/>5) Are conservatives still trying to flog that dead nag? It was stupid months ago. Still stupid.<BR/><BR/>6) And here I thought we were in a "Constitutional crisis" because Republican judges are willing to place ideology and party loyalty ahead of jurisprudence, sound judgment, and their mandate to be a check on the excesses and abuses of the other two branches.<BR/><BR/>Really, a thorough hearing is the only way we'll know any of these things. All we know is that he's made a career out of opposition to Roe v. Wade and recently dissented to his court, finding that Congress had no right to create the Endangered Species Act. Which would appear to indicate that he's one of those BS "constructionist" judges.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.com