<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d12702981\x26blogName\x3dSane+Nation\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLACK\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://sanenation.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://sanenation.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d1476394626602319783', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Monday, July 11, 2005

BALANCE GRAB: Surely White House strategists have taken note of Senator Schumer's innovative balancing-act test:
The President should take care to preserve balance on the court. I have often said that a Supreme Court with one William Brennan and one Antonin Scalia would be an interesting and vibrant court. But a Supreme Court with five of either would not.
Dear Senator Schumer: It's not your job (or that of the Senate at large) to "balance" the court. That's the talk of a legislator about legislatures. The Supreme Court exists not to legislate but to interpret the Constitution. Still, thanks for being so open about your agenda. When you proceed down that line of attack on the judiciary committee, be ready with answers of your own for Senate colleagues who may want to know a lot more about your quest to correctly balance America's court of last resort. Meanwhile: for a textbook illustration of liberals coming up with bogus "constitutional" pretexts, take heed of Schumer's warning that he expects Supreme Court justices to uphold "environmental rights." Hello? Can anyone refer me to the relevant article or section of the United States Constitution? Surely not even "privacy rights" are in play on this one, given that most of the environment is ... outside. And even the current Supreme Court has yet to overrule municipal prohibitions against public sex, regardless of partner gender preference. On the other hand, if Holland's Supreme Court has already so held, it's a safe guess that Justice Kennedy will cite that ruling in one of his future opinions. Bets, anyone?