|
This is a sidekick post to the one below [Kafkaesque Torture]. What makes all this so maddening is that we saw
all this coming in it's relative infancy! And didn't realize we
should have been hanging people from the get-go. Stab me in the
freaking liver, why don't you? Oh, sorry.
The New York Times yesterday used Justice Clarence Thomas to personify today's politically polarized courts.
| “
|
Justice
Clarence Thomas apparently has one additional requirement. Without
exception, the 84 clerks he has chosen over his two decades on the
court all first trained with an appeals court judge appointed by a
Republican president.
That unbroken ideological commitment is just the most extreme example of
a recent and seldom examined form of political polarization on the
Supreme Court.
|
” |
First
off, as the article admits, "none of the justices routinely write
first drafts of their opinions. Instead, they typically supervise and
revise drafts produced by their clerks. " Why then would Justice
Thomas, who believes in judicial restraint and three equal branches
of government, want someone who clerked for a judge like, say,
Clinton appointee
U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips? And raise your hand if you can't
predict how the four left-wing justices will vote on any social issue.
That's what I thought. And how did the courts get this polarized?
Robert Bork is square one in this adventure. Read about it.
Liberals have used, and are still using leftist judges as supernumerary
legislators, a.k.a. activist judges, to dictate into law that
which cannot be passed legislatively. Because the people hate it. Instead of black robes, today's
federal judges ought wear a uniform that identifies which faction they
support, American , or Democrat
. It would save thousands of hours that we now spend Googling to find who to
blame for the most recent judicial outrage, Carter, Clinton, or
(fasten seat-belts) Obama?
|
|
