NYT:
Newt Gingrich has sent so many hints pointing in so many different directions that we’re dizzy trying to follow them all. But now, it appears, he’s made up his mind.
Rick Tyler, Mr. Gingrich’s spokesman, confirmed today that the former Republican House speaker has decided against a presidential run in 2008.
Mr. Gingrich was “presented with legal advice this morning,” said Mr. Tyler in a quick phone interview. “There was a choice presented.”
The choice was to remain chairman of his political action committee, American Solutions, or to allow advisers to move forward with an exploratory committee. But he could not, legally, do both, Mr. Tyler explained.
“So Mr. Gingrich made a choice to remain a citizen activist,” he said.Mr. Gingrich’s flirtation with a candidacy has been long and replete with mixed signals. Throughout the spring, he mocked the other candidates for starting their campaigns so early, and he said then that if a “void” existed after his American Solutions conference in September, he would consider jumping in.He seemed to be leaning against a run when Fred D. Thompson’s candidacy started to spur excitement among Republicans, but as Mr. Thompson’s campaign got off to a slow start, Mr. Gingrich appeared somewhat interested again.
He said that if his supporters could raise $30 million by November, he would have enough to compete. Then, as Katharine Q. Seelye reported yesterday, he set up a “feasibility assessment” to determine his chances, and he said he would make up his mind by Oct. 21. Well, in a rare occurrence in politics, Mr. Gingrich beat his own deadline.
Mr. Tyler said news on an official announcement from Mr. Gingrich would be forthcoming. Mr. Gingrich was to appear on Fox News today at 5 p.m.
UPDATE: The word from Gingrich is that there will be no endorsements in the forseeable future.
September 29th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Too bad for me, it would have been nice to have a backup that actually had a chance of winning if Romney turfed it. Whatever, life goes on.
September 29th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
I am glad he made up his mind whether it was in or out, now there are no more ? candidates. we can get on with the race.
September 29th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
One question answered, one new one asked: “who will Gingrich support?”
My money is on Romney or Thompson, I’d like to think Romney, but some of his past statements seem to indicate he favors Thompson.
September 29th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Thank you Gingrich for finally making your intentions clear.
September 29th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Gingrich may support Huckabee:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/09/26/politics/horserace/entry3302154.shtml
September 29th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
This is…deeply disappointing. The 2008 race is feeling increasingly hopeless to me. I’m without a candidate, and the Republican Party seems nearly without a prayer.
September 29th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Matt -
1) Washington is not going to decide this election. A Hillary win there would be consistant with the 2000 and 2004 elections. If there is one region of the country that will decide the election, its the Great Lakes region – not the West Coast.
2) I’m assuming Newt was your guy? Alright, well, where do you stand on the issues, and what are you looking for in a President?
September 29th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
whoops, I though I was on a different thread. My mistake. Anyway, #2 holds, #1, well, ignore it.
September 29th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Dang it! I wanted Newt to run. It would have weakend Fred in the South. Oh well, I hope Fred is more active than his media persona portrays him to be.
September 29th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
ACT Blog,
I have three main priorities. 1.) The war against Radical Islam, 2.) Appointing excellent justices, 3.) Preserving Western Civilization.
I also want someone who’s smart and innovative, and willing to challenge the status quo. I know Romney’s your guy. He was mine too. But, I no longer think he will win, and I haven’t liked some of the things he’s said on Iraq recently. He needs to start making substantially more progress with 1.) Dealing with the flip-flopping issues, 2.) Dealing with the Mormon issue, 3.) Dealing with his Southern problem, and 4.) Dealing with his “inhuman” problem, before I’ll consider supporting him again. As it is, I think nominating the Romney of today, would be, while considerably less disastrous then nominating Fred Thompson, a real mistake.
September 29th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
So James Dobson only has two choices left:
Romney
Huckabee
If he chooses Romney, then he will get killed by his coreligionists.
If he chooses Huckabee, then he alienates fiscal conservatives and pro-illegal alien enforcement.
Dobson is very much in a bind! I have no idea which way he picks?!
September 29th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Well color me surprised, I thought for sure Newt was getting in. I suppose there is a chance that this is just another one of his games though.
September 29th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
I still wouldn’t rule him out for VP.
September 29th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Matt,
What about Giuliani? Given your priorities:
1.) Who else (besides maybe McCain) will prosecute the war on Islamic terrorism as ruthlessly as Rudy?
2.) You may not “trust” him with judicial appointments based on his views on social issues, but he’s basically told us who his first choices (right now) for judicial nominations are with the members of his “justice advisory committee.” He’s put together these kinds of committees for a number of policy areas; take a look at them to determine what a future Giuliani administration might look like.
3.) I’d say he’s a pretty staunch defender of “western civilization”, faults and all.
I’m not trying to convince you to support him, but I’m just wondering what the deal breaker is based on your list of priorities.
September 29th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Interesting thought, Randy,
Thompson/Gingrich, Giuliani/Gingrich, or Romney/Gingrich sounds a lot better than just saying Thompson, Giuliani, and Romney. A good daydream but probably an impossible reality.
September 29th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Matt
“I have three main priorities. 1.) The war against Radical Islam, 2.) Appointing excellent justices, 3.) Preserving Western Civilization.”
Matt, get past Romney’s faults, he’s your man. He can win. If you ace out Romney because he can’t win, who can win? Giuliani or Thompson by your standards! If Thompson strikes out with you, you really should consider Romney. He’s a good guy.
September 29th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Bottom line, a Newt candidacy would have strengthened Rudy, moderately help Romney, and weakened Fred.
Without him, it weakens Rudy’s chances, moderately hurts Romney and helps Fred.
September 29th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Big S -
1) Rudy might make a good military leader, though, I’m not exactly sure what he has done to be such a big force in that area, but “ruthlessly” is not going to combat the underlying heart of terrorism – the idea of islamic extremeism. We can kill as many terrorists as we want – but thats the equivilent of trying to rebuild a house that is still on fire. The only way to end terrorism is to empower moderate Muslims and defeat the ideology itself. So far, Romney is the only candidate I have seen put emphasis on that.
2) I’d like to believe that Giuliani would be strong on judges, but I have a hard time believing that a candidate who supports Roe v. Wade, and has called it good law – not to mention personally donated to abortion providers – would ever fight hard for pro-life judges. Even if he does, what happens after Roe is overturned? Will Giuliani sign pro-life legislation? Will he fight against pro-abortions bills?
3) I think most GOP candidates fit that description.
September 29th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Newt just said that he is not going to endorse anybody, and will not accept a VP nomination if offered. He will, however, be happy to return to Fox News as an analyst, and share his ideas with all of the Republican candidates.
September 29th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Big S,
I happen to believe that there’s a reasonable chance that nominating Rudy Giuliani would destroy conservatism, and the Republican Party, as legitimate movements in the United States. I’ve gone into my reasons previously, and they’re too involved to completely rehash. But, simply put, I don’t think the Republican Party survives without social conservatives. I don’t think a party developed around hawkishness and quite serious fiscal conservatism, has any chance whatever of triumphing long-term. I don’t think it has even a hint of a chance. And while I think most so-cons would vote for Rudy, because they like Rudy, they’d fundamentally rethink their voting alignment. So-cons voted for Jimmy Carter in 76′, because they liked and connected with him due to his deep religiosity. They all abandoned the Democratic Party in droves after his election. Because, they decided that social issues ought to be their primary concern, and that these trumped cultural connection or fiscal priorities. I think a GOP that ceases to take social issues seriously, by nominating a Rudy Giuliani, is a GOP that will see millions of Mike Huckabee type evangelicals (socially conservatives, fiscally liberal) abandon their monolithic allegiance to the GOP.
So I’d rather avoid that. I happen to think this election cycle is incredibly important. Important enough for me to risk the destruction of conservatism long-term, to put a good candidate, with strong priorities in the white house. If I’m forced to. I’ll need to be dragged kicking and screaming into Rudy’s camp. Though, if Romney doesn’t become a better candidate, and McCain fails to rise from the ashes, I suppose that’s precisely what will occur.
September 29th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
nowandlater,
“Without him, it weakens Rudy’s chances, moderately hurts Romney and helps Fred.”
I think it would have hurt Romney for Gingrich to run, because Gingrich would attract individuals that want a smart candidate that gets things done.
I’m basing that off of common sense, not national polls. In my opinion, national polls and most state-wide polls lack common sense.
September 29th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
In this cycle, I am strong believer that regionalism is strongly in play. If that is true, then Newt’s strongest region of influence comes from the South. A divided South would help Romney. That’s my reasoning.
September 29th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Newt made the sane choice. He would have made a fool of himself if he really tried to get in at this late juncture. Also would have been extremely gull of himself if he though he had that much pull on GOP voters.
http://www.political-buzz.com/
September 29th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Nowandlater,
That does make sense when you look at it from a Southern regional prospective. I suppose I was looking at the early primary states primarily as well as the National scene. Fred’s lock on the Southern states most assuredly shows that regionalism is strongly involved in the south, because there is no other logic behind it. Outside of the south, I think it is still sketchy where the regionalism comes into play – speaking more of trends lines of state polling numbers than current numbers.
September 29th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Gingrich will not suddenly decide to be irrelevent and endorse someone. Why in the world would he do something like that?
September 29th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
This is going to be a big blow to Dr. Dobson and the Family Values crowd.
September 29th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
ACT,
Actually, I’m taking into account the non-military aspects of the war on terror in my above comment. I’d say Rudy prosecuted the mafia rather ruthlessly, even though it was via the application of the law rather than military might. In fact, there are very strong parallels between organized crime as we generally know it here in the USA and al Qaeda and its associates.
As far as judges go, you’ve tipped your hand as a single issue voter. Good judicial appointments require much more than just opposition to one controversial, 30 year old case. The amount of judicial overreach in Roe v. Wade is nothing shocking compared to the kinds of “judicial activism” preferred by many social conservatives, even as they themselves denounce it. Both sides are guilty of this, and Roe is not the worst decision that we have seen.
My concern is not so much with “correcting” past decisions as with the way in which judges approach future decisions. We’ve had more than 30 years to argue over Roe, and no consensus has been reached on the constitutionality of it. However, we need judges who will make sound decisions about things such as “domestic” surveillance in terror cases, that were not conroversial issues 10 years ago, and that do not have the amount of history behind them as the abortion issue. I think Giuliani understands this, and is not willing to compromise that requirement for “strict constructionism” in favor of litmus tests on certain issues.
September 29th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Fred has the South. But Huckabee, McCain, and even Rudy will weaken him. It is odd but a vast majority of the Southern states are awarding delegates proportionally which means if Fred has any semblance of competition which is highly likely he will lose delegates.
Rudy has a lock on the Tri-state area in the Northeast. Rudy also is doing well in the midwest.
Regionally, Mitt is helped in Arizona (he is closing in on McCain), parts of California, parts of Oregon, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, and parts of Colorado (I have a feeling that underground attacks on Mitt’s religion will only generate more energy from his coreligionists in those states. They weren’t energized by Orrin Hatch’s run in 2000 because the media, and his competitors were not making an issue of his religion. With Mitt, his opponents are fueling the fires for upsets in those states.) Add to Mitt’s “regional” advantage in Michigan, and New Hampshire. And that the fact that Mitt has become a sentimental favorite in Iowa because he played in the straw poll. Then Mitt has a sizable block of influence of “regionalism”.
September 29th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
This is going to be a big blow to Dr. Dobson and the Family Values crowd.
How? The odds of Newt running were slim to begin with.
September 29th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
“As far as judges go, you’ve tipped your hand as a single issue voter.”
I’m not a single issue voter, but abortion is one of those issues that is a “deal breaker” – along with other things.
–
As for the rest of your post, I agree that it is about more than Roe, but Roe is deffinately a major part of it – and something that is still a big political issue. Abortion is perhaps the most polarizing issue in American politics – more than the war, more than taxes, more than immigration. I agree that we need a candidate who will make good judicial appointments, and that there is more to it than abortion, but I want someone who will also act on abortion, and I don’t think Giuliani fits that bill.
September 29th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
#27 nowandlater,
That was a work of art! Bravo on your part! I totally see where you are coming from now.
September 29th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Dr. Dobson is going to have to fess up to the truth: Romney is the most Christian front-runner, even though Dobson says he’s not a Christian. It’s both a sad and hilarious situation, if you ask me!!!
But, who am I fooling, he will probably play chicken and not endorse anyone, or endorse Huckabee and watch him lose. Life is not always fair.
September 29th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Big S,
ACT Blog is not a single issue voter, he just understands the race extremely well and doesn’t want to compromise on the issues that he cares about.
September 29th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
ACT.
Sorry for assuming you’re a single issue voter. Perhaps a bit of “overreach” on my part.
Your point about Roe v. Wade being a politically polarizing decision goes to the heart of this argument, although perhaps not in the way that you meant it. The judicial branch is separated from the “political” branches of our government for a reason, which is that binding judicial decisions must rest on a basis of cases brought before the court, and established law, rather than the whims of the electorate. I think a lot of people, conservatives especially, misinterpret the term “judicial activism.” It is fully within the powers of the Supreme Court to use the rationale of “privacy,” as implied by the Constitution, in order to justify allowing abortion in a given case. That, in and of itself, does not constitute judicial activism. Where the activism comes in is when judges write their opinions in such a way as to cover issues that were not explicitly addressed by the case brought before the court; that is, rather than “making up the law” they make up a case, and apply their interpretation to it in order to preempt possible future cases based on real disputes. The best we can hope for is a judge who waits to hear the particulars of a real case before pronouncing an opinion on it, and who stops within the boundaries of the law delineated by the particulars of a case. That is why even “good” judges like Alito and Roberts refuse to answer the “hypothetical” questions posed to them by Senators during their confirmation hearings–without case details, it is impossible to come to a decision. Furthermore, it is important that they do not “revisit” old cases without a new and relevant case being brought before the court; to do so is just as much judicial activism as anything else.
September 29th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Big S: ‘It is fully within the powers of the Supreme Court to use the rationale of “privacy,†as implied by the Constitution, in order to justify allowing abortion in a given case. That, in and of itself, does not constitute judicial activism. Where the activism comes in is when judges write their opinions in such a way as to cover issues that were not explicitly addressed by the case brought before the court; that is, rather than “making up the law†they make up a case, and apply their interpretation to it in order to preempt possible future cases based on real disputes. ‘
How on earth do you even make up this nonsense? Obviously, when the Supreme Court justifies an abortion in a given case on the basis that the Constitution protects a woman’s right to obtain an abortion, that does apply to all other cases. When one woman has the Constitutional right to obtain an abortion for no reason, obviously, other women have that right as well. The states may continue to attempt to enforce their abortion laws, but they would lose in court at every turn.
‘That is why even “good†judges like Alito and Roberts ‘
Judicial activists, all of them. Kennedy may be the only non-activist on the court, since he recognized that Roe is good law, despite being a devout Catholic and a strong pro-lifer himself.
September 29th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
jrcutler: ‘ACT Blog is not a single issue voter, he just understands the race extremely well ‘
So you’re telling me that there is a parallel universe where ACT Blog actually knows what he’s talking about? Who knew?
September 29th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Him and Fred should get together and flirt with each other instead of us.
September 29th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Big S: ‘We’ve had more than 30 years to argue over Roe, and no consensus has been reached on the constitutionality of it. ‘
You ask any constitutional lawyer, even those who disagreed with Roe to begin with, whether they would vote to reverse Roe. I disagree with the initial decision, but to overturn Roe v. Wade at this point would be foolishness.
September 29th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Gingrich not running indicates pessimism about our chances.
If Gingrich thought a Republican could win in November he’d jump into this wide-open race in an instance. His non-profit group appears much better concerning how little chance he and the other candidates have.
I’m betting most of these guys are setting themselves up for 2012 when a Republican has a better chance.
September 29th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Awakened,
I’m not talking about *individuals* having to petition the Supreme Court any time one wants to have an abortion, or address any other issue. What I’m talking about is when judges move beyond a statement such as “the government can not do _____”, and insist on providing a series of “examples” or “conditions” based on hypotheticals that were not included in the original complaint and have not yet been brought before the court. Your post betrays a misunderstanding of the issue; Roe v. Wade did not provide a right for women to obtain an abortion for no reason; instead, it went on and on about trimesters, etc., hedging its bets against future cases. Another unrelated example might be O’Connor’s specification of hypothetical time limits and conditions for the expiration of affirmative action.
As for your more recent posting, I agree that the overturning of the decision would be foolishness if it were initiated without a court case that pertains directly to it. However, in the process of deciding other cases, if RvW or sections thereof, were vacated, that would be responsible use of judicial power.
September 29th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Gingrich deciding not to run is anticlimactic in spades. If he had been fired up to run, he would have run several months ago. One of the reasons I’m really optimistic about our chances next year is that Gingrich is not going to be our candidate. How do you even conceivably create a new Republican brand with Gingrich at the helm? Is there anybody alive today who says old establishment politics as thunderously as Newt? He would be the right guy if we wanted a candidate who could match Hillary’s negatives. As it is, however, the one thing that needs to be said is good riddance!
September 29th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Big S: ‘Your post betrays a misunderstanding of the issue; Roe v. Wade did not provide a right for women to obtain an abortion for no reason; instead, it went on and on about trimesters, etc., hedging its bets against future cases.’
Well, since the woman had already given birth, the only remaining issue was the constitutionality of the Texas law at hand. And I certainly have no objection against the Supreme Court giving guidelines and a framework (that’s what opinions are used for) to lower courts, especially when making a chance of tectonic proportions, like Roe v. Wade. It makes no sense for the Supreme Court to leave the law in sort of limbo for more years until all matters are esolved.
‘Another unrelated example might be O’Connor’s specification of hypothetical time limits and conditions for the expiration of affirmative action.’
She was making it clear on what basis she was deciding in favor of the university. And since it’s not binding on her or any of the other justices, it’s really hard to object to it.
What would be judicial activism under your definition, however, is a ruling like Dred Scott. It went beyond the narrowest possible basis on which it could make a ruling. Instead of merely holding that blacks are not citizens of the United States (and thus have no right to petition courts), it went on and stated that Congress had no authority to outlaw slavery in the territories and more.
‘However, in the process of deciding other cases, if RvW or sections thereof, were vacated, that would be responsible use of judicial power.’
That would be an exercise of raw judicial power. It has been precedent for more than 34 years, and there are reliance issues. The only one who would favor overturning Roe, would be people with a political agenda – or people with no regard whatsoever for stare decisis.
By the way, aren’t previous judicial decisions ‘overturned’, not ‘vacated’? It annoys me to hear people like Chris Matthews talk about the ‘repeal’ of Roe v. Wade.
September 29th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Dave: ‘He would be the right guy if we wanted a candidate who could match Hillary’s negatives. ‘
More like outdo. Clinton’s negatives are around 50/50, while Gingrich’s are more like 40/60.
September 29th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Awakened,
Kennedy, a non-activist? Good gosh? Kennedy’s an embarrassment to the judiciary. Have you read any of his opinions? They’re abysmal both stylistically, and logically. You may be just about the only man in America who takes him remotely seriously. Sandra O was more embarrassing, but he’s undoubtedly the second worst justice to sit on the Supreme Court in decades. Yes, I’d take Breyer, Ginsburg, and Stevens over Kennedy, liberalism and all.
September 29th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Big S,
ACT Blog is not a single issue voter, he just understands the race extremely well and doesn’t want to compromise on the issues that he cares about.
ACT Blog is pretty much a single-issue voter for abortion. Otherwise, he’d be supporting Rudy. Or maybe he’s a single issue set voter; the media stereotype of a Republican primary voter: guns, God, and gays are the top issues!
Awakened — Gingrich’s are 40/60 now. I honestly think he is/was electable. America loves a good makeover.
September 29th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Awakened,
“Judicial activists, all of them. Kennedy may be the only non-activist on the court, since he recognized that Roe is good law, despite being a devout Catholic and a strong pro-lifer himself.”
This is what I find so incredibly flawed about modern evaluations of the Supreme Court. Your evaluation is entirely results oriented. There’s no other possible explanation for labeling Kennedy a “non-activist”. Kennedy is an embarrassment of a justice. I’m not discussing results. Breyer is not an embarrassment of a justice. Ginsburg is quite proficient. I considerably prefer Kennedy’s political and judicial “positions”. Evaluating judges as “good” or “activist” requires considerably more then simply determining whether you like the results. By those standards, undoubtedly O’Connor and Kennedy seem like model judges to you. By any others, they’re abysmal. They’re both, comparably anyway, quite poor writers. They’re both (though O’Connor moreso then Kennedy) prone to overthrowing their own previous decisions. Both don’t seem to have ever grasped the art of constructing a coherent argument. And both tend to sprinkle their opinions with cringingly purple lofty rhetoric. Note this quote from O’Connor’s Casey opinion “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” Awful. I’d take any of the four libs, over these model “non-activist” moderate judges. At least they’re not embarrassments to the judiciary (I probably won’t get around to responding for a few hours).
September 29th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Eh. I tend to agree with Matt, here.
Though I think we can all agree that Clarence Thomas is the greatest justice on the Supreme Court.
September 29th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
I prefer Scalia but why split hairs?
September 29th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Matt: ‘This is what I find so incredibly flawed about modern evaluations of the Supreme Court. Your evaluation is entirely results oriented. There’s no other possible explanation for labeling Kennedy a “non-activistâ€. Kennedy is an embarrassment of a justice.’
I’m not so sure what you’re getting at here. It’s results-oriented in the sense that I suspect that most justices are legislating their own personal preferences from the bench, while Kennedy is doing his best to uphold the law, even if that means upholding a decision that contradicts his personal beliefs about abortion.
‘Evaluating judges as “good†or “activist†requires considerably more then simply determining whether you like the results. By those standards, undoubtedly O’Connor and Kennedy seem like model judges to you.’
Probably. But that is not why I think that Kennedy is not an activist. And I wouldn’t label O’Connor a ‘non-activist’.
‘Note this quote from O’Connor’s Casey opinion “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.‒
I believe Kennedy wrote that. He was widely mocked for it. But I’m sure I can dig up cringeworthy quotes from opinions written by any one of the Justices. But unlike Kennedy (and Souter), they don’t have a bullseye on their back and they don’t tend to write opinions in tough cases (Clarence Thomas mainly gets to write opinions about tax law, or so I’m told).
Look, the bottom line is that Stevens, Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg get labeled ‘activist judges’, while people like Scalia and Thomas get a free pass on that matter. But I believe that they’re as much activists as the ‘liberals’, if not more so. The ‘liberals’ are quite moderate when you compare them to their predecessors, Justices Brennan and Marshall (yeah, yeah, I know who replaced him) used to vote to overturn every death penalty verdict they got their hands on, and Blackmun started doing that rather late in his tenure. They have a healthy respect for stare decisis and don’t invent new constitutional rights anymore, they merely sustain the rights that the people already have, held by previous courts. On the other hand, someone like Thomas would vote to overturn a precedent from 1816, if it didn’t match his political views. Just one example of what he’d do.
For the record: do you agree with me that Scalia and Thomas (and other ‘conservatives’ in general) are not the ‘objective justices who merely interpret the law’ that they claim they are (you probably don’t)? For some strange reason, their decision tend to line up quite nicely with conservative political goals. Coincidence?
September 29th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
ThatLibertarianGuy: ‘Though I think we can all agree that Clarence Thomas is the greatest justice on the Supreme Court.’
He’s probably the least intelligent Justice on the court right now. And the most extreme. No wonder that he rarely, if ever, opens his yap during the oral arguments. He would offer some bogus reason for this, but I suspect that he fears that he’ll betray his foolishness. If you consider him to be a great justice, you’re guilty of the results-oriented judging that Matt deplored in his previous post.
The smartest Justices would be Scalia, Breyer and Souter. I don’t know about Roberts yet. And Alito just rubs me the wrong way, I can’t objectively judge him.
September 29th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
econ grad stud: ‘I prefer Scalia but why split hairs?’
I don’t know who you’re talking about. But I suspect that it’s Mr. Federalist who fals in love with the federal government when it’s trying to combat something he doesn’t like – marijuana.
September 29th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Newt will probably endorse Mike Huckabee. He has already blogged on the site:
http://www.mikehuckabee.com (look under newsroom)
September 29th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Awakened,
“For the record: do you agree with me that Scalia and Thomas (and other ‘conservatives’ in general) are not the ‘objective justices who merely interpret the law’ that they claim they are (you probably don’t)? For some strange reason, their decision tend to line up quite nicely with conservative political goals. Coincidence?”
I think Scalia occasionally seems too emotionally invested in decisions. I sense nothing but judicial conscientiousness in Thomas. But, I think they both come out with decisions they dislike politically, more often then any of the liberals on the court and considerably more often then Kennedy. Contrary to your impression, Kennedy’s decisionmaking is almost inherently result oriented.
He’s known to agonize over his decisions, and change his vote 2 or 3 times in important cases. This is something motivated not by the deep complexities of individual cases, but the utter unreason of his reasoning. He doesn’t approach cases with any discernible methodology. He hasn’t answered, even for himself, the most basic question of jurisprudence: What is it judges are supposed to be doing? And so he’s forced to, in torment, consult his own “soul” to figure out where he ought to come down on any remotely controversial case. He’s derided, by the right and the left, as Kennedy The Philosopher King (The New Republic had a quite interesting piece on this some months back), and it’s hard to imagine a more apt appellation. He lacks the most crucial quality in a legal system which is meant to be, in the words of Aristotle “Reason divorced from passion”: rigor.
TLG and EGS,
I love all of the Big Four. I think Scalia is one the best wordsmiths to ever get ahold of the English language. He’s a giant among dwarfs in that respect. He’s wonderfully witty. And his mind is razor sharp. He’s the best of the bunch in both style and substance. But, for all that, I think he’s slightly too emotionally invested in decisions. Although, I love to hear his lectures and debates personally, I think they’re vaguely unseemly in a Supreme Court justice. As far as temperment goes, Roberts is my ideal. And if early indications are any sign, he’s very nearly Scalia’s equal in style and substance. Thomas strikes me as ideal, in terms of sheer willingness to follow principle. Thomas will follow originalism to the ends of the earth, and often does. Alito just seems like a wonderfully conscientious, workman justice.
September 29th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Also, I have no idea what’s going on, but for some reason I’ve been unable to post anything to this site on my primary computer for the last two days. Is it possible someone has inadvertently blocked my IP address? Or are there any suggestions about the possible source of the problem? I type a message, it claims it’s gone through and won’t allow me to post a duplicate, but it never appears on the site. I’ve varied the lengths of comments, and nothing seems to be successful.
September 29th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
“The ‘liberals’ are quite moderate when you compare them to their predecessors, Justices Brennan and Marshall (yeah, yeah, I know who replaced him) used to vote to overturn every death penalty verdict they got their hands on, and Blackmun started doing that rather late in his tenure. They have a healthy respect for stare decisis and don’t invent new constitutional rights anymore, they merely sustain the rights that the people already have, held by previous courts. On the other hand, someone like Thomas would vote to overturn a precedent from 1816, if it didn’t match his political views. Just one example of what he’d do.”
Yes, historically the liberals are fairly moderate. Breyer in particular. I like Breyer. I’d never appoint him, but I think he sincerely attempts to find the right answer to questions. I simply happen to think that his methodology of finding answers, is simply inherently directed towards subjectivity. And that his interpretations are usually quite wrong. I think you’re mixed up about Thomas. He is quite willing to overturn old decisions. But, not because they violate his political views.
Thomas goes against typically conservative views more radically then any other justice. He hinted in his concurrence in the Gonzalez v. Carhart case, that had federalism been brought up, he would have gone on the decision. He believes the federal government can’t make drugs illegal. He’s done all sorts of “liberal” things. And often, the old decisions he hopes to overturn, would establish a precedent he couldn’t possibly be in favor of. In an early decision, a black inmate was beaten by guards and (initially anyway), Thomas was the only justice to find that the inmate had no cruel and unusual punishment claim. I really think you do Thomas great wrong by insisting that he’s following his personal preferences in decisions like these. You can quibble about his reasoning, or his methodology. You can deride him as a horribly impractical radical willing to overthrow precedents so thoroughly ingrained in society, they’re no longer even challenged. But, I don’t think you can fairly characterize him as someone who comes to conclusions fit to match his political views.
September 29th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Matt: ‘I think Scalia occasionally seems too emotionally invested in decisions. I sense nothing but judicial conscientiousness in Thomas. But, I think they both come out with decisions they dislike politically, more often then any of the liberals on the court and considerably more often then Kennedy. Contrary to your impression, Kennedy’s decisionmaking is almost inherently result oriented. ‘
Then please do explain to me how a devout Catholic and strong pro-lifer came to uphold Roe v. Wade, after initially voting to overturn it. The other Catholic justices seem to differ from Kennedy in that respect. Now I don’t know whether they are pro-life or not (although Alito is reported to be), but Scalia’s sheer anger and viciousness in decisions concerning abortion, does make it seem that he is pro-life and an ideologue.
‘He’s known to agonize over his decisions, and change his vote 2 or 3 times in important cases. ‘
Then name a few cases where he changed his vote 2 or 3 times. I know of two cases where he changed his vote ONCE, Casey v. PP and Lee v. Weisman.
Also, I would argue that the fact that he is open to changing his mind, shows that he is not results-oriented. His opinion on abortion or school prayer didn’t change with his vote. His view of the law did. And that’s how a justice should act.
‘He hasn’t answered, even for himself, the most basic question of jurisprudence: What is it judges are supposed to be doing?’
I think that’s a bogus question. Obviously, everyone except William Brennan thinks that they should interpret the law and do justice (Holmes would disagree with that). The disagreement is between people who want to interpret the constitution as if it were the year 1787, practically do away with Marbury, and between others who disagree with that view.
‘He’s derided, by the right and the left, as Kennedy The Philosopher King (The New Republic had a quite interesting piece on this some months back), and it’s hard to imagine a more apt appellation.’
What a surprise. The New Republic didn’t like his recent decisions regarding abortion and the death penalty. I couldn’t have guessed that they would do a hitpiece on the man ultimately responsible for these decisions.
‘Aristotle “Reason divorced from passionâ€: rigor. ‘
And what about Scalia? The pure venom that he spews, even at his fellow Justices, doesn’t argue for him.
‘ I simply happen to think that his methodology of finding answers, is simply inherently directed towards subjectivity.’
There’s always some subjectivity in the matter of judging, that is why we have judges and not MegaJudge Bot 3000s. Without using human judgement and sanity, you can expect to descend into the pits of madness, like Scalia and Thomas.
And I disagree with your that Thomas and Scalia are not (or less) subjective.
‘Thomas goes against typically conservative views more radically then any other justice. He hinted in his concurrence in the Gonzalez v. Carhart case, that had federalism been brought up, he would have gone on the decision. He believes the federal government can’t make drugs illegal. He’s done all sorts of “liberal†things.’
Like what? Most extreme conservatives are also extreme federalists, and they were angry at Scalia for siding with Kennedy+4. So why don’t they favor making drugs illegal, even if they hate drugs? It establishes a precedent for doing all sorts of things they don’t like.
‘In an early decision, a black inmate was beaten by guards and (initially anyway), Thomas was the only justice to find that the inmate had no cruel and unusual punishment claim. ‘
You know that old joke, that Thomas would vote to take away his own voting rights? I don’t think that racial justice is very high on his agenda. Regardless, I know of that case (Louisiana, not?) and it was really a technicality. It is also important to keep in mind what kind of precedent ruling in favor of the defendant would set. Thomas might not be very intelligent, but he knows full well what the consequences of any decision will be. As I said, you can’t be for criminalizing drugs on a federal level but still be against [fill in the blanks] (something conservatives don’t like). The same thing goes for the Eighth Amendment.
And bear in mind that I’m not saying that Thomas always votes the way his political views are. I’m saying that it’s not a coincidence that his rulings nearly always favor the ‘conservative’ side.
‘But, I don’t think you can fairly characterize him as someone who comes to conclusions fit to match his political views.’
What? Based on one or two cases where he ruled against what his presumptive position is? I don’t think that really proves it. I think that even the most rigid ideologue rules against his ‘position’ every now and then, especially when the issue isn’t terribly important to him, or when he knows that it will set a bad precedent for his political views. It’s a shame that ‘conservative’ activists are trying to make the Supreme Court a rubber-stamp for the other two political branches (unless, of course, they disagree with what they are doing). I’m against judges making far-reaching decisions like the one in Roe v. Wade, I think that Roe has done damage to the abortion-rights movement, but I also wouldn’t be in favor of overturning it. Not after 34 years. And the point that one of the Justices made in Casey was very important: to overturn Roe in the face of the enormous public criticism would tarnish the institution, which is not supposed to be ruled by the whims of one majority or another. The proper course is to pass a constitutional amendment. Of course, that’ll never happen, politicizing the judiciary even more is easier.
September 29th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
As opposed to not overturning a clearly incorrect ruling taking away the liberties of the American people to rule themselves and disenfranchising almost half the populace?
Moreover, by staying in the abortion business the Supreme Court effectively ensured that they would continue to be a political and not a legal institution. I can think of no decision since Dredd Scott that has done more damage to the Supreme Court and which will continue to do damage. Casey was the chance to fix that and Justice Kennedy blinked because he was afraid of temporary bad press.
Justice Kennedy is a self-important joke.
BTW, I don’t believe the liberal wing are all that moderate (maybe Breyer to a small degree…but even that is overblown by a few cases). If a fifth liberal justice came to the court, I have little doubt that we’d see a slew of new “rights” invented out of thin air.
September 30th, 2007 at 12:04 am
Casey was the chance to fix nothing
Let’s sat conservative prayers had been answered and Kennedy hadn’t waffled.
Roe is overturned 5-4
Guess what would have happened as soon as Ginsburg was confirmed?
That’s right, Casey would have been overturned and Roe would have been reinstated
That’s what I don’t get about abortion and conservtives. They think they just need to overturn Roe and that’s the end of it.
Only until there’s enough liberals/moderates on the court, and there will be in tume.
I think that at this point the reality of the situation is that barring some a constitutional amendment or some huge swing in public opinion, early term abortion is going to remain legal and all of this is much ado about nothing.
September 30th, 2007 at 1:06 am
I doubt it. Perhaps the courts would have gotten involved again on the margins, but without the cover of stare decisis (which is really the only legal pillar Roe has at this point) it’s hard to imagine re-entering the debate in such a ham-handed manner again.
September 30th, 2007 at 1:38 am
So you really think that once Roe is overturned the liberals are just going to give up? That’s it. You think all the pro-choice groups are just going to go home?
Of course not. They’ll wait till a democrat is elected and it’ll be reinstated as soon as possible.
September 30th, 2007 at 2:23 am
I don’t think they’d “give up”. But I also don’t believe they’d win through the courts.
And since we’re talking about the future now. If a conservative (read Romney) wins in 2008, we’ll be looking at a strong conservative majority (6-2 or maybe even 7-1 with Kennedy dithering). It would be decades, if ever, before the court would return to a liberal composition just as a matter of simple math.
Your contention that Roe is unassailable is blatently false. We’re very close to final victory on that front.
September 30th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Grace,
We all know that Newt blogged on Huck’s site. However, he said himself that he will not endorse a candidate and will advise the dems as well as the republicans.
September 30th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Thomas Alan: ‘As opposed to not overturning a clearly incorrect ruling taking away the liberties of the American people to rule themselves’
You’re free to not have an abortion, woman. No one is forcing you to. However, the Supreme Court has said that you are not free to rule other people, and that’s what you’re objecting to.
‘and disenfranchising almost half the populace?’
Boo hoo. Loving v. Virginia and Brown v. Board of Education ‘disenfranchised’ more people than Roe v. Wade. If that’s the standard for poor decisionmaking, these two decisions are worse than Roe.
‘I can think of no decision since Dredd Scott ‘
Okay, without looking it up, can you tell me what it says? Who wrote it? How many justices dissented? Did it legalize slavery? Was the ruling ever overturned? You can’t. Unlike well-informed people, you know the Dred Scott decision only from the pro-life propaganda pieces, which say that “DRED SCOTT LEGALIZED SLAVERY LIKE ROE LEGALIZED ABORTION”.
‘Casey was the chance to fix that and Justice Kennedy blinked because he was afraid of temporary bad press.’
I’m glad that you are still tormented by the Roe v. Wade decision. One so nasty, mean-spirited and ill-informed as yourself deserves it.
‘BTW, I don’t believe the liberal wing are all that moderate (maybe Breyer to a small degree…but even that is overblown by a few cases). If a fifth liberal justice came to the court, I have little doubt that we’d see a slew of new “rights†invented out of thin air.’
Your ‘beliefs’ have very little to do with reality. You can predict what they would decide when they’re in the majority by looking at their dissents. Unlike Brennan and the other liberal justices, these liberal justices don’t seem to be in the business of creating new rights, they are striving to uphold the law and the precedents as they are.
‘we’ll be looking at a strong conservative majority (6-2 or maybe even 7-1 with Kennedy dithering). ‘
I don’t have a clue, since it’s not about candy. But can you tell me: how many Justices does the Court have?
September 30th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Bill Clinton, Gingrich agree on Huckabee as GOP dark horse
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/bill-clinton-gingrich-agree-on-huckabee-as-gop-dark-horse-2007-09-30.html
September 30th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Awakened,
“Okay, without looking it up, can you tell me what it says? Who wrote it? How many justices dissented? Did it legalize slavery? Was the ruling ever overturned? You can’t. Unlike well-informed people, you know the Dred Scott decision only from the pro-life propaganda pieces, which say that “DRED SCOTT LEGALIZED SLAVERY LIKE ROE LEGALIZED ABORTIONâ€.”
I don’t know if Thomas can answer these questions, but I’ll take a stab at it. Chief Justice Taney wrote the majority opinion. I think it was 7-2, but I don’t recall precisely. Certainly not 5-4. The case involved Dred Scott, who’d been turned over to another owner after his first owner died. After the death of his owner, he moved to a free state with his new owner. He then proclaimed himself a free man and a citizen.
Taney’s central holding insisted that Scott was property, and that individuals have a fundamental right to their property, and property would cease to be property in any meaningful sense if an individual could lose it when crossing a border. So Taney ruled against Scott. The decisions was largely controversial not for it’s result (which many accepted, and still accept), but for various periphery issues. It, in fact, if not in name, introduced the doctrine of substantive due process. Taney added a section of dicta, about the relation of the black man to society during the founding period. He did this largely to answer the question of whether or not Scott was a citizen,and therefore, whether or not he had standing to sue. On the citizenship question, he came to two principle distinctions.
First, he insisted that one could be a citizen of a state, and not a citizen of the country (where standing was relevant). Secondly, and here comes the dicta and substantive due process, he asserted that blacks were viewed so poorly during the founding period, that not only weren’t they citizens, and not only weren’t they capable of becoming citizens by their own volition, but they weren’t capable of becoming citizens EVER. No law could suffice to grant blacks citizenship. The constitution laughed at the idea. Even an amendment would be suspect.
The analogues to Roe are very obvious indeed. First, it claimed that no process could be sufficient to give blacks citizenship. Due process became not merely procedural, but substantive (that’s the central idea of due process: that some values are so inherent, nothing will suffice to change them). It’s also quite Roelike in the sense that it imposed a national order, which could only be altered by war or (though this is less clear) amendment.
And no, it was never overturned.
September 30th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Matt: ‘I don’t know if Thomas can answer these questions’
We both know. This is a ‘man’ who thinks that the Supreme Court has 8 Justices, and yet he fashions himself to be an expert on legal matters. That, he is not. I’m sure you won’t agree with me, but I think he’s mistaken the size of his mouth for that of his brain.
‘Chief Justice Taney wrote the majority opinion. I think it was 7-2, but I don’t recall precisely. Certainly not 5-4. The case involved Dred Scott, who’d been turned over to another owner after his first owner died. After the death of his owner, he moved to a free state with his new owner. He then proclaimed himself a free man and a citizen…And no, it was never overturned.’
I believe this is correct, except for the fact that he moved to a free state. As far as I know, he moved to Minnesota Territory, which had to be free because of the Missouri Compromise.
‘Taney’s central holding insisted that Scott was property, and that individuals have a fundamental right to their property, and property would cease to be property in any meaningful sense if an individual could lose it when crossing a border.’
It wasn’t really that broad, it only applied to the territories and not to the states. Do remember that at this point, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government and not to the states. Since several states did consider slaves to be property, and indeed, the ‘original intent’ of the Constitution clearly recognizes the rights of states to consider people to be slaves, it would be a violation of a man’s property rights for Congress to declare that he loses his slaves once he enters a free territory. Subtantive due process or not, I think that Scalia and Thomas would be quite comfortable with that part of Dred Scott, if they had lived at the time.
‘The analogues to Roe are very obvious indeed.’
I guess people will see what they’re looking for.
‘Due process became not merely procedural, but substantive ‘
Don’t you like DC Circuit judge J.R. Brown? She doesn’t like substantive due process for social matters (because she disagrees with the outcome), but she absolutely adores it when it comes to economic matters. In fact, she’s a supporter of the Lochner-school (more like, asylum) of thought.
‘It’s also quite Roelike in the sense that it imposed a national order’
Many Supreme Court decisions impose a national order. I think I could come up with 20 decisions during the last 7 years. That doesn’t make them anything like Dred Scott, which we don’t fault for imposing a national order, but for imposing the wrong national order. I don’t see you faulting the 9 justices for imposing a national order in Loving v. Virginia or comparing that decision to Dred Scott.
‘which could only be altered by war or (though this is less clear) amendment. ‘
I don’t know where you got the war-part. The war didn’t alter Dred Scott, two Constitutional amendments did.
September 30th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Hey Thomas Allen, you contemptible creature, come out of your cave and answer the questions you’ve been asked. I’m sure that by now, you know how many Justices the Supreme Court has, and what the Dred Scott decision said (unless you’re dumber than even I thought), and you’ll pretend that you knew all along, but you still have to account for some of the mindless rantings you’ve put on this board. I believe that merely by having me read your nonsense, you knocked off 5 points from my IQ. Maybe we can unleash (literally, I’d wager) you upon our enemies.
September 30th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Can’t we all agree that any republican has to be better than Hillary? Well, except Giuliani. The only reason he is running as a Rep is because he knows he can’t beat Hillary in primaries.
September 30th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
“Since several states did consider slaves to be property, and indeed, the ‘original intent’ of the Constitution clearly recognizes the rights of states to consider people to be slaves, it would be a violation of a man’s property rights for Congress to declare that he loses his slaves once he enters a free territory. Subtantive due process or not, I think that Scalia and Thomas would be quite comfortable with that part of Dred Scott, if they had lived at the time.”
The substantive due process was found mainly in the dicta. I quite agree that Scalia and Thomas might well have been comfortable with the above part of the holding. Abraham Lincoln was reasonably comfortable with that part. The dispute mainly concerned two points. 1.) Lincoln in particular was concerned that the Supreme Court didn’t simply decide Dred on a “case by case” basis. He felt that applying such a broad decision to all future cases was near to tyranny. 2.) The dicta prevented blacks from becoming citizens even in Northern states. It stated that under no circumstances could blacks become citizens, under the constitution. These are the issues that led to the Civil War. These are the central flaws in the Dre(a)d decision making process, and they’re nearly directly analogous to the central flaws in Roe.
“Don’t you like DC Circuit judge J.R. Brown? She doesn’t like substantive due process for social matters (because she disagrees with the outcome), but she absolutely adores it when it comes to economic matters. In fact, she’s a supporter of the Lochner-school (more like, asylum) of thought.”
I believe that’s a misrepresentation of Judge Brown’s position. That was taken out of context from a speech and was later clarified in her confirmation hearings. Regardless, I don’t particularly like Judge Brown. I don’t particularly dislike her. I frankly think she’s a wonderful writer, and quite smart, but too emotionally invested in decisions. She’s a poor man’s Scalia. I’d be happy to have her on the court, but she’s not one of my top choices.
October 1st, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Matt: ‘The dispute mainly concerned two points. 1.) Lincoln in particular was concerned that the Supreme Court didn’t simply decide Dred on a “case by case†basis. He felt that applying such a broad decision to all future cases was near to tyranny. ‘
And that is the case. If you decide that blacks are not citizens of the United States and can’t sue in federal court, that’s the end of the matter. You don’t even have to consider the other issues. Unfortunately, we all know about Roger Taney’s political leanings. But this part has absolutely nothing to do with Roe v. Wade.
’2.) The dicta prevented blacks from becoming citizens even in Northern states. It stated that under no circumstances could blacks become citizens, under the constitution. These are the central flaws in the Dre(a)d decision making process, and they’re nearly directly analogous to the central flaws in Roe. ‘
I’m not sure about that. How did the court not decide the issues on a case-by-case basis in Roe? The rationale they used to say that women who have been raped should be allowed to have abortions, allowed abortions for everybody. So it’s sensible to provide lower courts with a framework, and they did that.
As for your second point, I think I know what you’re getting at. You want to say that Roe doesn’t allow ‘unborn children’ to become citizens of the United States? I don’t think there’s much of a comparison, though.
‘Regardless, I don’t particularly like Judge Brown. I don’t particularly dislike her. I frankly think she’s a wonderful writer, and quite smart, but too emotionally invested in decisions. She’s a poor man’s Scalia.’
LOL! I agree that Scalia is a good writer, but a good writer doesn’t necessarily make a good judge.