« The Zero Option | Main | Downward Spiral » Under Construction04 Jun 2007 01:46 pm George W. Bush: "I believe in strict constructionists. Those are the kind of judges I will appoint." William Rehnquist: "a strict constructionist judge is one who favors criminal prosecutors over criminal defendants, and civil rights defendants over civil rights plaintiffs." New York Times: "The Supreme Court today . . . appeared to make it easier for prosecutors to select jurors who are predisposed toward capital punishment in future cases." And there you have it. Comments (17)
I thought a "strict constructionist" is a judge who thinks counting votes is a violation of equal protection. 
Ron, that helps, but it probably not necessary. After all, those counted votes might help the wrong side.
Fix the post dammit.
Coupla things to keep in mind: As with about everything he says, Bush doesn't know what he's talking about (he's a fucking idiot). He's merely reading from a script. The second part of Renquist's quote is meaningless, since any civil rights plaintiffs or defendants could fall on either side of the debate (e.g., a plaintiff could be suing based on perceived "discrimination" or "reverse discrimination," either way, they're a plaintiff).
Matt meant to end the post with this: The Supreme Court today appeared to make it easier for prosecutors to select jurors who are predisposed towards capital punishment in future cases.
The second part of Renquist's quote is meaningless, since any civil rights plaintiffs or defendants could fall on either side of the debate (e.g., a plaintiff could be suing based on perceived "discrimination" or "reverse discrimination," either way, they're a plaintiff). Reverse discrimination lawsuits weren't exactly common back in the early 1970s, when Rehnquist made his statement. The paradigm was pretty much that the plaintiff was a minority and the defendant was an alleged discriminator, and that's the context in which Rehnquist was writing.
A strict constructionist is a judge who adheres strictly to Republican talking points. A does so with scorn.
One thing I hate about alot of reporting on capital case appeals is the frankly unnecessary description of the underlying crime. For the courts, the facts of the crime are established and unimportant. Appeals are based on mistakes made at trial or evidence of gross unfairness. What the defendant did is unimportant. The ONLY reason to bring the circumstances of the crime up in an article is to inflame the public (again) against the defendant. The problem with reporting like this is it fails to acknowledge the very real problem of false convictions. Several states have announced moratoriums on capital punishment specifically for this reason. To continue to print inflammatory descriptions of a crime when discussing an appeal is to unnecessarily inflame the public. Of course, lurid crime stories ALWAYS inflame the public, but the American press can't be called upon to report responsibly anyways. But just for the record: while murders make great copy, they're not that big a story. Violent crime is certainly a problem, but it's not the epidemic our blood-soaked news programs and papers would make it out to be. Perhaps people would be less likely to engage in violence if our press stopped pushing the idea that violence is so common-place in society.
Reverse discrimination lawsuits weren't exactly common back in the early 1970s, when Rehnquist made his statement. The paradigm was pretty much that the plaintiff was a minority and the defendant was an alleged discriminator, and that's the context in which Rehnquist was writing. a. It was just an example 2. Just sayin' anyway
You're quoting John Dean, not William Rehnquist. But I guess, under that definition, Scalia isn't a strict constructionist. After all, he wrote the Kyllo decision.
Indeed, Scalia hates the term -- which simply reiterates my point: Dean and Yglesias can't simply take at face value that Bush, Rehnquist, or anyone else is talking about the same thing when they employ the term "strict constructionist." Some, like Bush, think of Scalia as a strict constructionist. Others, like Scalia, do not.
James Hare, If any newspaper is writing about a murder case (or an appeal), then "what is the guy alleged to have done?" is going to be part of the story. It would be a pretty glaring omission to leave it out. I guess it might inflame somebody, but the facts are the facts, and the fact of who somebody murdered is certainly relevant when you're writing about their appeal and/or execution.
trhvd eofrzvwbj hpwryt tukqo clveaugo hjykusdiw ycuknlb
Comments closed June 18, 2007. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
The definition has never been improved upon in the 35 years since Rehnquist penned those words as Solicitor General. Any attempt to give it credence as an actual theory of jurisprudence is doomed.
Posted by norbizness | June 4, 2007 2:07 PM