Thursday Elena Kagan was confirmed to join the supremes and Wednesday California’s odious Prop 8 was ruled un-constitutional.
Scott Brown said he wasn’t going to vote for Kagan “I cannot vote to confirm Elena Kagan. The reason is simple. I believe nominees to the Supreme Court should have previously served on the bench,” Brown said in a statement. “Lacking that, I look for many years of practical courtroom experience to compensate for the absence of prior judicial experience. In Elena Kagan’s case, she is missing both.” In a court where the issues come down to constitutional or not constitutional, I am just wondering out loud, what would court room experience have to do with it. It is an academic exercise. She’s an academician. I don’t get it. Well at least the House of Lords didn’t filibuster. Oh yeah, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wasn’t a trial judge either. But that is old news and you knew that already.
The other good news law story of the week was the overturning of Prop 8 in Judge Vaughn Walker’s historic ruling. “Traditional Marriage” an issue so near and dear to the Republican party has sparked little or no response from said party. It has been quiet…almost too quiet. But outside the party there’s another party a-brewin’. The Protect Marriage group will file an appeal to the 9th Circuit Court in response to the ruling. Both sides will file written arguments by Friday in regards to a stay of the case. Meanwhile, back at the ranch Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage launched a counter-attack to rally the religious right, calling Walker’s decision a sign of a “Soviet-style” government takeover of marriage, leading the way as conservative groups stoke a backlash against the decision. Waaaay too much Glenn Beck Maggie. Time to change the channel to cartoons. By the way, a reading of the decision is a great civics lesson for anyone who really thinks the way Maggie thinks. If it reaches the supremes the ruling will always be known as the Perry v. Schwarzenegger for all time, like Brown v Board of Education or Roe v Wade. Arnold could not have envisioned that his name would be in law books forever, or for that matter any book without pictures.
Finally I have to take issue with the term “Anchor Baby” in referring to children born of illegal immigrants (read ‘Hispanic’). What an awful label to bandy about. Shame on the once proud and pro-life party. Even Lindsey Graham (R-SC) calls them the “drop and leave” kids. It is the core argument of course for the “lofty” desire to get rid of the first line of the 14th Amendment that if you are born here you are automatically a citizen. Whatever flag you wrap this one in it is still racism plain and simple. Prolific races are a threat to non-prolific races. But to objectify babies and/or children is very similar to what the Nazi’s did as their “Final Solution.” Objectifying the very things we fear the most (illegals, Muslims or other ethnicities not our own) gives us permission to do very nasty things.
So hear hear for the ruling and shame shame for the labels.
and so it goes…