Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« A few quick reactions to Alito | Main | Briefing "schedule" on US v Miller »

Thoughts on Alito nomination

Posted by David Hardy · 1 November 2005 11:35 AM

I won't bother to link a bunch of Brady Campaign press reports, since it's no more than the media picking up their press release, linked below. But they appear to be taking the lead on the Demo counterattack. That in turn ducks the question of qualifications (good choice) and goes direct to "this guy, if on the Court, will vote against legislation we like or maybe for legislation we don't." In short, the same considerations you'd have if he were running for Congress. A few thoughts:

1) The nastiness of fighting over Supreme Court nominations has escalated lately, I think largely because the judicial role is increasingly seen in this light. (After 30 years experience, I would be the last to say judges are impartial decisionmakers unswayed by their own values. BUT I would expect the Supreme Court to try harder than most). It's not so long ago that we had the younger Justice Harlan striking down a prosecution of a guy for wearing a "Fuck the Draft" t-shirt, when it's safe to say that Harlan found the shirt appalling. Today ... look at the campaign finance decisions. It's hard to say that they were based upon anything much more than "campaign reform is a good idea."

2) The split between originalists and positivists and the-law-is-what-I-want-it-to-be types is becoming more and more sharp. It's become so different that a while back I read a law prof. arguing, and rather cogently, that the most one can expect of a judge is that he is consistent to his approach. That is, if Scalia is a textualist, and Thomas an originalist (which are close but not identical), they will not depart from that analytical mode in a case because they want a different result.

3) In fighting on this ground, though, that will be brought out from under the rock. The bottom line becomes "to hell with the Constitution, and principled reading of it -- we want a guy who will vote to uphold certain things, and vote our way." By "principled reading" I do not mean "agrees with me." I mean simply "honestly tries to figure out what it means, without resort to whether he likes the result." I tend to think most of the American people are less cynical than I on whether this happens, and that almost all would agree it SHOULD happen. Even if they get POed over a result now and then. And they probably would be disturbed to hear arguments over an "evolving constitution" and suchlike, and feel great security in a person judge who believes that his job is to find meaning in the original. (And who can respond: if you don't like the original meaning, it is within your power to change it, and then I'll follow that).

4) The confirmation battle will be fought out between, by all accounts, a first-rate legal mind, opposed by Ted Kennedy, Diana Feinstein, etc.. I think I know where I'll put my money.

5) In short, the Demos are attacking the high ground, with indifferent weaponry wielded by their worst troops. Reminds me of the last ten or twenty years. And to think this is a party that once controlled both Houses and the White House for decades (or at least long periods of time!

· contemporary issues

1 Comment | Leave a comment

C.A.G. | November 2, 2005 5:55 AM | Reply

I think the confirmation will be bloody, but that Alito will be confirmed. A long drawn out confirmation hearing process will also, in my estimation, harm the democrats more than hurt them. The hardcore resistence to Alito will be to impress the democrat's ever shrinking base, who will vote for them anyways. A few weeks of nasty hearings will alienate moderates who are wondering why it takes 100 presumably smart people so long to decide on anything.
C.A.G.

Leave a comment