AP
Hmmmmmmm
The 76-year-old associate justice said Wednesday that major policies in a democracy should not depend “on what nine unelected people from a narrow legal background have to say.”
Rather, he said, it is important for political leaders to show the world that democracy works through compromise.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Compromise is nothing but surrender by degrees. It should be outlawed.
OldEnglish on March 7, 2013 at 8:05 AM
Too early for me to parse this one, and SOMEONE *cough Drake cough* left the go**am shop doors unlocked overnight. There will be pain.
Bishop on March 7, 2013 at 8:05 AM
That would be relevant if we lived in a democracy. Of course, we don’t, which is where nine judges come in…to differentiate our constitutional republic from the mob rule of a “democracy” like we see in Egypt today. Shows what an Ivy League law degree gets you these days.
CycloneCDB on March 7, 2013 at 8:07 AM
If you look at gay marriage issue, there was compromise in California… and that compromise was the reason why the issue is going to the supreme court.
That compromise was stuck down by the state supreme court… and that compromise was deemed insufficient by the kangaroo court in San Francisco and the 9th circus.
Other states would be stupid to give out civil unions/domestic partnerships until SCOTUS has had a say on the issue.
ninjapirate on March 7, 2013 at 8:16 AM
Alzheimers.
Mimzey on March 7, 2013 at 8:20 AM
We live in (what used to be?) a republic.
The “nine unelected people” are assigned by our Constitution to have 1/3 of the power of the federal govt. So it doesn’t all depend on what the nine unelected people say. Just 1/3 does.
One would think a SCOTUS judge would know that.
itsnotaboutme on March 7, 2013 at 8:23 AM
All they gotta do is decide whether the issue before them squares with the Constitution. We are not asking them to make policy decisions.
Geez.
This guy.
S. Weasel on March 7, 2013 at 8:41 AM
He’s right – though probably not in the sense he means things – the courts should not be making policy decisions. That’s for the political branches to hash out. The judges should only decide on the basis of the law as already constituted (and not penumbras or emanations or code words or anything else).
The Supreme Court doesn’t do this as often as the Circuit courts (primarily the 9th Circus Court), but it is still guilty. Of course, Kennedy is at least as guilty of that as anyone else on the current court. (He is big on “prevailing attitudes” and such crap.)
GWB on March 7, 2013 at 8:46 AM
I think the point Justice Kennedy laments is that the controversial decisions end up at SCOTUS rather than being worked out by the people and legislation, thus the hard decisions fall on SCOTUS. But it’s a symptom of the disease. The legislators, the people, and SC Justices don’t want to follow the Constitution. The people of California voted overwhelming on Prop 8 and gay marriage. But a minority and now the White House want to overrule the voters simply because they disagree with that result, so now it’ll make it’s way to the SC. All the Justices have to do is rule Constitutionally. But they don’t, do they Justice Roberts? Maybe Kennedy is feeling the heat and wants to get out of the fire?
conservative pilgrim on March 7, 2013 at 8:53 AM
It was set up when they over rode the commerce clause.
CW20 on March 7, 2013 at 9:48 AM
It sounds so simple when you put it that way, Stoaty…
…wait! It is that simple!
Who knew?
Bob's Kid on March 7, 2013 at 10:28 AM
The late Fred Rodell wrote a book about this 60 years ago, and it was belated then. Of course Rodell wasn’t complaining; he wanted the Court to just admit it was entirely political and go for broke. He also believed in replacing lawyers and judges with panels of “experts.” Progressive utopia, sigh.
Seth Halpern on March 7, 2013 at 10:55 AM
Nobody said it was an easy job. If that was, indeed, his point – he’s making himself sound like a total pansy. Anyone who studied political science, let alone constitutional law, knows full well that the Supreme Court is a bulwark against injustice, not an administrative clearinghouse.
The court has had to make very difficult decisions for as long as it has existed. This is nothing new.
CycloneCDB on March 7, 2013 at 11:05 AM