Comments on: I’m Glad You’re Here to Tell Us These Things

by: Anwyn

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:08:24 +0000

That would be fun … we’ll have to see what we can work out. :)

by: nk

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:33:16 +0000

Hey, Xrlq told me that we “missed you by that much” on April 7-9. Email me, if you want, the next time you’re in the vicinity especially now that the weather is nice. Our Peanut (yes, that’s what we called her) will like meeting your Bean.

by: Anwyn

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:18:04 +0000

Not a thing in the world makes me think I’m wrong. Obviously. ;)

You seemed to be saying that because you like Stevens and because he ruled appropriately in the case, there’s nothing wrong with what he said quoted above. I concede that Stevens may be likeable and that he ruled appropriately and still think he stuck his food in his mouth with the above, that’s all. If you’re not saying that, if you’re saying what he said above was offensive but you like him anyway, well and good.

And I turned the emoticons off a while ago … smileys still welcome. :)

by: nk

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:11:45 +0000

We’re just talking on our front steps, remember? ^_^ What makes you think that I think that you were wrong and that I’m right?

And does your site support emoticons? ;)

by: Anwyn

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:46:07 +0000

I know as little about the Supreme Court in general and about Stevens in particular as is possible for any relatively well informed American. I am not making a sweeping indictment on Stevens and I agreed with you that his concurrence despite his personal attitude showed good judgeship. That does not excuse the passage I quoted from being offending and condescending to his fellow brain-posessing human beings, especially the ones in government bodies. Which was all I was saying to begin with.

by: nk

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:38:07 +0000

I like good judges, no matter what their politics (or say better “policy-making”). I think they are rare on the Supreme Court. Warren Burger was one. And I think Roberts and Alito are too. I am inclined to think that Thomas is but I am not entirely sure (mainly because he and I seem to agree so much ^_^) and I am inclined to think that Scalia is not, despite the conservative icon he has become.

by: Anwyn

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:23:45 +0000

And I’m afraid I’ll have to disagree with Beldar in a non-lawyer way. All Stevens did was, reluctantly, admit that the law supports the death penalty. I think his rhetoric makes it clear that he would like these laws changed, rather than saying that death penalty opponents failed to convince him. That they failed to coonvince him the death penalty is unconstitutional, well and good, but that’s not what I’m really talking about here.

by: Anwyn

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:21:23 +0000

And I’m glad he did (behave like a judge) but his rhetoric was a bag of wind nevertheless.

I *almost* put in a disclaimer to that hat-tip saying I wasn’t endorsing or even necessarily agreeing with the thrust of Buchanan’s argument in that piece. But the quote is accurate.

by: nk

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:14:26 +0000

The fact is, Anwyn, that Stevens gave a lesson on judicial restraint in that concurrence. Despite his obvious distaste for the death penalty, he voted to affirm Baze’s death sentence and mode of execution. He talked like an advocate but he behaved like a judge. Beldar thinks that he did even more than that. That he sent a message to death penalty opponents: “If you can’t even get my vote, give it up (for now). I’m the fat lady and I sang.”

And I have looked at Pat Buchanan with a jaundiced eye since he did his best to give us the Clintons in 1992 and Al Gore in 2000.