"As people do better, they start voting like Republicans - unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing" -- Karl Rove
You see it in the NFL all the time. The best team in football tends to dominate in its time, with a solid quarterback, and a number of other top-quality players. When a quarterback makes this much difference (as Karl Rove must be doing), the defense has to find a way to stop him.
If the offense is set up properly, there's no way for the defense to stop the quarterback. So, the defensive line coach puts in a designated thug, whose job it is to break the quarterback's arm; and to bend the rules as necessary to do it.
So there we are with Wilson. He's the designated thug, that the democrats will sacrifice so long as they get their man.
They may get to the quarterback, but it's not clear where the penalty flags will fall.
Saturday, July 16, 2005
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Happy Trails, Sandy O'Connor
It is difficult to discern a serious threat to religious liberty from a room of silent, thoughtful schoolchildren. --Sandra Day O'Connor
Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt. Yet, 19 years after our holding that the Constitution protects a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy in its early stages, Roe v. Wade (1973), that definition of liberty is still questioned. --Sandra Day O'Connor
O'Connor often swerved wildly to miss the point in matters before the court. In case #1, she made the shallow observation that quasi-religious expression in school is hardly threatening, but she missed the broader constitutional point that freedom of religion does not require freedom from religion.
In case #2, she bemoaned the fact that the definition of liberty is questioned, while discounting and condemning the most fundamental liberty of the young and fragile.
The Supreme Court is supposed to settle matters of law. Most of O'Connor's rulings were not only shallow, but exceedingly narrow. This required many more passes at the court to re-try and clarify all these narrow rulings. That makes more work for lawyers, but is ultimately not efficient or effective.
I really wonder if lawyers are all that well suited to be judges. Maybe we should train judges to interpret the law, instead of drawing from the pool of those paid to exploit it.
Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt. Yet, 19 years after our holding that the Constitution protects a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy in its early stages, Roe v. Wade (1973), that definition of liberty is still questioned. --Sandra Day O'Connor
O'Connor often swerved wildly to miss the point in matters before the court. In case #1, she made the shallow observation that quasi-religious expression in school is hardly threatening, but she missed the broader constitutional point that freedom of religion does not require freedom from religion.
In case #2, she bemoaned the fact that the definition of liberty is questioned, while discounting and condemning the most fundamental liberty of the young and fragile.
The Supreme Court is supposed to settle matters of law. Most of O'Connor's rulings were not only shallow, but exceedingly narrow. This required many more passes at the court to re-try and clarify all these narrow rulings. That makes more work for lawyers, but is ultimately not efficient or effective.
I really wonder if lawyers are all that well suited to be judges. Maybe we should train judges to interpret the law, instead of drawing from the pool of those paid to exploit it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)