Political Blogs
Love 'em. Both right and left. I always find it interesting how both sides have a devout group that does nothing but bash the other side with unfounded accusations and half truths, while those who are able to have an intelligent argument on either side are a microscopic minority.
The Supreme Court buzz has come alive again over the past couple days with Bush making his latest nomination. Liberals and conservatives alike are unsure about this one, given that she doesn't have much of a published history on which to make an educated decision. But there are a few out there who have already vowed unwavering support or opposition. From the right are some Bush loyalists willing to blindly trust his picks. On the left are Bush dissenters who feel she must be inherently evil by association.
On both sides you'll find people who will either support or oppose her based on her opinions of only one or two issues. And that's fine; that's the right of any individual to do so.
But that decision to support or oppose a nominee also illustrates the importance of any Federal judicial appointments. If a Supreme Court justice is vehemently anti-abortion, does that mean that we're looking at a nearly guaranteed overturning of Roe v. Wade? Not at all. In fact, it's probably not even likely. There's even the possibility that a justice will spend their entire term on the bench without ever making a ruling related to abortion or any other specific hot-button issue.
A Supreme Court nominee is, without question, a big deal worthy of big news. Yet below them are judges of the federal appellate system and the circuit courts. Only rarely have those appointments been considered newsworthy enough to even get a mention in a newspaper or on the evening news. But those appointments are nearly equally as important.
It seems that few people actually understand that the Supreme Court doesn't just pick and choose what cases or social issues they want to address. Cases first must go through the court system, up through the appellate system, and then it might be heard at the Supreme Court level. But forget the civics lesson.
What that means is that while anti-abortionists (or even pro-abortionists) are busy scrutinizing nominees at the highest level, it is the judges at the lower echelons that must first rule on cases and potentially set each question on a journey toward the highest court. Accordingly, wouldn't it make sense to work toward filling the lower ranks of the federal court system with judges sympathetic toward ones own causes, instead of focusing exclusively on Supreme Court nominees? Wouldn't the first line of defense for a pro-gun rights organization be to ensure judges strongly supporting their right to bear arms sit on the lower benches in hopes that restrictions on gun ownership never even reach the Supreme Court level? The same can be said with abortion rights groups, the ACLU, evangelistic Christians, etc. Anyone and everyone.
Countless dollars and hours will now be spent on hearings, media campaigns, etc. People will be up in arms over the president's latest pick. That's all inevitable. It's an important process, it warrants lively debate and discussion. Yet this same discussion should also be held at the lower levels, the levels at which these decisions are just as likely, and perhaps more likely, to affect each and every one of us.
The Supreme Court buzz has come alive again over the past couple days with Bush making his latest nomination. Liberals and conservatives alike are unsure about this one, given that she doesn't have much of a published history on which to make an educated decision. But there are a few out there who have already vowed unwavering support or opposition. From the right are some Bush loyalists willing to blindly trust his picks. On the left are Bush dissenters who feel she must be inherently evil by association.
On both sides you'll find people who will either support or oppose her based on her opinions of only one or two issues. And that's fine; that's the right of any individual to do so.
But that decision to support or oppose a nominee also illustrates the importance of any Federal judicial appointments. If a Supreme Court justice is vehemently anti-abortion, does that mean that we're looking at a nearly guaranteed overturning of Roe v. Wade? Not at all. In fact, it's probably not even likely. There's even the possibility that a justice will spend their entire term on the bench without ever making a ruling related to abortion or any other specific hot-button issue.
A Supreme Court nominee is, without question, a big deal worthy of big news. Yet below them are judges of the federal appellate system and the circuit courts. Only rarely have those appointments been considered newsworthy enough to even get a mention in a newspaper or on the evening news. But those appointments are nearly equally as important.
It seems that few people actually understand that the Supreme Court doesn't just pick and choose what cases or social issues they want to address. Cases first must go through the court system, up through the appellate system, and then it might be heard at the Supreme Court level. But forget the civics lesson.
What that means is that while anti-abortionists (or even pro-abortionists) are busy scrutinizing nominees at the highest level, it is the judges at the lower echelons that must first rule on cases and potentially set each question on a journey toward the highest court. Accordingly, wouldn't it make sense to work toward filling the lower ranks of the federal court system with judges sympathetic toward ones own causes, instead of focusing exclusively on Supreme Court nominees? Wouldn't the first line of defense for a pro-gun rights organization be to ensure judges strongly supporting their right to bear arms sit on the lower benches in hopes that restrictions on gun ownership never even reach the Supreme Court level? The same can be said with abortion rights groups, the ACLU, evangelistic Christians, etc. Anyone and everyone.
Countless dollars and hours will now be spent on hearings, media campaigns, etc. People will be up in arms over the president's latest pick. That's all inevitable. It's an important process, it warrants lively debate and discussion. Yet this same discussion should also be held at the lower levels, the levels at which these decisions are just as likely, and perhaps more likely, to affect each and every one of us.