Tuesday, June 07, 2005

Raich Blog Links

I'm going to post some of my favorite Raich decision blog links. If you have more add them to the comments:

Do something









Legal Theory Blog

The Agitator

The Agitator

The Volokh Conspiracy

Vice Squad

Crescat Sententia

Drug War Rants


Knox News

US Marijuana Party

Andrew Sullivan

Balloon Juice

Balloon Juice


Patterico's Pontifications

The Moderate Voice

LA Times


Nobody's Business

Blind Mind’s Eye

Dispatches from the Culture Wars

Musing's musings

Relentless Pursuit of Wisdom and Liberty

Johnathan Adler - NRO

Hootsbuddy's Place

Lockjaw's Lair

Leviathan Slayer

Pro's and Con's

Sir BlogsaLot


Lex Communis

Combs Spouts Off

The Spoonbender

Star Bright

Poli Tech

De Novo

John Lott

Chicago Tribune

Mader Blog

Crime & Federalism

The Daily Brief

Tom Paine


Anonymous said...

And then people like you wonder why there's a drug war.

If you haven't noticed yet, any real change in the status quo of any sort is going to a real reorientation of the role of the judiciary. Certainly the judiciary we have now is completely comfortable with the drug war.

And if you really care about reorienting the judiciary, the GOP is the only game in town, specifically nominations of conservative, federalist, intelligent, articulate judges by a Republican President and confirmed by the Senate. You can oppose them if you like (and you apparently do), but God it's shortsighted in the extreme.

M. Simon said...

Right wing judges are no panacea.

Scalia is as activist as any liberal. He first figures out what outcome he wants and then finds a rationale. If strict constructionism works he uses that. If not then he finds other "reasons".

OTOH if it was possible to get a few more Thomas type judges I'd be all for it.

Janice Brown is a move in the right direction.

Bork (had he gotten in) is another in the Scalia mold. I'm glad his nomination failed.

Out of seven Republican Supreme Court Judges there are three that are pretty good.

Only one of those is a strict constructionist.

I'd like to see where any new nomination stands on the IX and X Amdmts. Scalia and Bork believe that since nothing is laid out in detail re: unenumerated rights that those Amdmts have no meaning. In other words only enumerated rights count. This is the French model not the American one.

Thomas is less articulate than Scalia. I've also heard Scalia is a nicer person. Yet in my opinion Thomas is the better judge. He follows the law as written.

Anonymous said...

You are correct that right wing judges are not a panacea, but they _are_ the only game in town.

Just as if you and the other "little Eichmanns" don't want to be beholden to the likes of Ward Churchill, then the social conservative are the only game in town.

This should not be a difficult concept. It is also not meant to be an assertion of some kind of political privilege, but instead a _description_ of objective reality.

JT said...

Thanks for the link!


M. Simon said...

koz says I should be a party man because that is the only game in town.


So when the Dems are in the majority I should not oppose them when I think their actions wrong?

Would that be OK with you koz?

I no longer give unequivocal support to any party. I judge each issue on its merits and decide.

Now I will grant, given my thinking today, that the Republicans are closer to my general outlook than the Dems.

I am still not going to give them a blank check.

You see I once took an oath to preserve and defend the Constitution (and no - I am not a naturalized citizen). If either party in any way does not live up to my understanding of that oath I am going to not only withhold my support. I'm going to scream bloody murder.

That my party right or wrong stuff died for me on 9/11.

BTW did you note that my communist Senator Obama came out in favor of sticking with our efforts in Iraq until we have established a government that responds to its citizens and can stand on its own.

When I first heard that you could have knocked me over with a feather.

Anonymous said...

Ok, first of all, the conservative movement to reform the judiciary is much culturally much broader than GOP loyalism. So is the social conservative movement. In fact, there is more overlap between them than either has with the GOP.

There's a lot of politically active people who care a great deal about getting conservative judges confirmed, but much less about who gets what seat on the Budget Committee.

The upshot is, your emphasis on the party as the locus of loyalty is a little misplaced. Ie, you should support the GOP (& conservatives in general) in what they do, even if you don't agree with every jot and tittle of it.

If you want to reorient the judiciary, the GOP is the only game in town. If you don't want Ward Churchill to have veto power over US foreign policy, the GOP (supported by the socons) is the only game in town.

Now here is the important part. If you don't like the fact that you don't always agree with conservatives of various stripes and don't want to have to be coopted into them, then you have serious work to do. The Federalist Society and the Family Research Council have already put in decades of work in the vineyard that the libertarians and the decriminalizers haven't.

I also think you're giving Scalia something of a bad rap btw, but I'll answer that in the comments to a more topical post.