The High Court: A User’s Guide

After reading this I know for sure I want to make sure Obama does not get elected. What in the world was Dahlia thinking when she wrote this POS. Is there no limit to which this woman will not go to make sure the democrats get elected? Does she even realize that there are a lot of people who think she is bat s*it nuts-o?

Commenter darogers must have forgotten that Clarence Thomas isn't authentically black and therefore doesn't count.

I'm not sure Justice Scalia distrusts the "judiciary", but he may certainly distrust many who toil within it. And why not, many are undeserving of trust because either they don't understand the scope of their jobs or they don't care.

And why, pray tell, should the Supreme Court "look like America?"

Lithwick obviously agrees with Barack Obama who would appoint judges and justices based on their "empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old." In the Obamanation, the judiciary's job will be to dispense social justice, fight for the "underdog", distribute "equity" and "fairness", close gaps, serve the "collective good", the law be damned. The Law of the Land will be interpreted in accordance with today's "sensibilities", international "sensibilities", progressive "sensibilities", original intent be damned. Given sufficient time, the Obamanation judiciary will be responsible for so much new law that it will become indistinguishable from the legislature. With upwards to three appointments in the offing, this is just one reason, but one very important reason, why an Obama presidency presents a clear and present danger to the Republic. It's a source of constant amazement to me that Ginsberg, Stevens, Souter, Obama and all the rest of the liberal coterie hold their judgement and wisdom above that of Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Franklin et al. In truth, they wouldn't even be considered for the back bench on the Founder's team. Their overweening hubris is laughable, but unfortunately this is no laughing matter.

There's a rumor floating around that a deal has been struck and Obama's first SCOTUS appointment will be none other than Hillary Rodham Clinton. Imagine that.

I think I'll skip any more Dahlia Lithwick High Court user guides, thanks.

Others have covered the fool Ms. Lithwick has made of herself and NEWSWEK re the Supreme Court demographics, but Lithwick also wrote: " ... the government can call you an enemy combatant based on your last name or your area code, then hold you without charges for six years at Guantánamo Bay on the promise that you are either a bad guy, or will become one after six years of being held without charges at Guantánamo Bay."

I find it hard to believe that NEWSWEEK pays Lithwick to write trash like this. This sounds like a spoiled brat, no, -- a seventh grade girl -- writing about things about which she has no clue -- so she trivializes both civics and war. It is no wonder that thousands of us have abandoned the big media for a wide variety of more thoughtful, more in depth and more intelligent discussions of serious issues on the Internet.

Lithwick wrote: "All the judges are white and/or old; most are both."

This must come as a surprise to Clarence Thomas.

The accuracy of this observation surpasses much of which Ms. Lithwick expounds.

Another example of why I cancelled my Newsweek subscription. The Wallstreet Journal serves me better news.

This is why I will vote for Mcccain in November. He will follow the present course of establishing the constitution as the governing judicial document.

todays ruling on the 2nd amend. as an individual right is a landmark . Thanks George Bush.

for this reason obama will NEVER get my vote or those of the 2nd amendment supporters. he is funded by Soros whose adgenda is a worldwide gun ban enforced by the UN. Scary? very!

when the gun lobby comes out in November this panderer who has flipped his veiws once again will be sent home to his anti gun bastion of chicago with his anti gun cronies.

Obama prez, Senate and House in Democrats hands AND 2 more liberal judges, be afraid, be very afraid. The consitution would be fair game.

Lithwicks ideological twin is NPR/PBS' Nina Totenberg,who displayed consitutional idiocy even more pronounced than that of Lithwick,when,upon hearing of the HELLER decision,sputtered that ''the high court has always viewed the 2nd as a collective right'',turning 200 years of constitutional decision and scholarship on its head. She forgets that 1939s MILLER [the ''sawed-off shotgun case''],never addressed in any sentance of its decision that Americans forfeited individual rights in the area of gun ownership.Nor did it grant only ''collective''rights,which the Totenbergs and Lithwicks of the world sought before todays decision,the most landmark since the long-ago MILLER case. Indeed,it is post-1960s liberals precisely such as these two which entered ''collective''into the left-of-center American lexicon as it applies to the 2nd Amendment. Even constitutional law professor John Turley of GW University,a fierce liberal and Bush administration critic,went back to the 2nd and found to his own surprise,that the ideal of the Founders extending all the way back to the individual state platforms of the original Continental Congress,enshrined an individual,as opposed to a ''collective''right to keep and bear arms. MILLER merely provided illumination on the types of guns that were seen to be lawful,and so rendered decision based upon arms normally utilized by criminals at the time,the quick-firing Thompson submachine gun and the altered shotgun. What this means to the citizens of DC,Frisco,New York City,and other liberal-dominated bastions is that semis ,revolvers,and lawfully recognized clip weapons are back on the menu.

Dahlia Lithwick,

You're a moron. And I'm being nice.

I find the Dahlia's statement , "ALL THE JUDGES ARE WHITE AND/OR OLD" to be an extremely odd choice of words which only serve to irritate readers and possibly insult Jude Thomas.

I've read rearlier replies here which disect the actual meaning behind this statement and of course there are some who defend it becasue Dahilia's choice of words are factually correct. But come on, she wrote that garbage to make a political point and anger and insult people.

If George Will wrote, "Both Presidential candidates are white and/or senators." there would be an outcry of racism and anger from those who support Obama. We get it Dahlia, you don't like conservatives, we're not surprised . . . but making "shock jock" statements says a lot about your inability to write something intelligently.

I find the Dahlia's statement , "ALL THE JUDGES ARE WHITE AND/OR OLD" to be an extremely odd choice of words which only serve to irritate readers and possibly insult Jude Thomas.

I've read rearlier replies here which disect the actual meaning behind this statement and of course there are some who defend it becasue Dahilia's choice of words are factually correct. But come on, she wrote that garbage to make a political point and anger and insult people.

If George Will wrote, "Both Presidential candidates are white and/or senators." there would be an outcry of racism and anger from those who support Obama. We get it Dahlia, you don't like conservatives, we're not surprised . . . but making "shock jock" statements says a lot about your inability to write something intelligently.

Nins, your wrong on your concept of "seperation of Church and state". The idea is based on a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to a group identiying themself as the Danbury Baptist. And I quote,

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

And for you further education on theis matter here IS the first Admendment to the US Constition.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The Second Ammendment's purpose is to ensure an armed citizenry should the need arise to take back control of our own government. Not a terribly pretty picture, but it is clearly stated in the Federalist papers and other writings of the time, in which our government's framers explained to the general public the reasoning behind each of the first 12 ammendments (2 of which were not ratified). The possibility of future revolution were stated in the Declaration of Independence, which not only advocated throwing off the shackels of British domination, but of any government that abuses the basic rights of its people. We have a right to be armed BECAUSE the government has an army, and that army may be wrongly used against us.

Guns are not the problem in America. The disintegration of civility is the problem; the degeneration of basic morality. I'm not talking religion here, I'm just talking about the basic ability to get along; to genuinely care about other people and to translate that character into action.

We are not the laughingstock of the world because of our gun laws, or any other law for that matter. We are held in low esteem because of our inability--individually and corporately--to control our own actions and hold others accountable (in realistic and effective ways) for theirs.

AMERICA...Land of the free and insane! Way to go!

.

Give it a rest Nins. To begin with,you have no evidence whatever that ''every single'' federal judicial appointment is a ''Christian'' rightwinger. Further,it is for a purpose that the aformentioned leftwingers in grievience go to liberal courts in order to file suit,hence the oft-overturned 9th US. Obviously,''impartiality''does not play into the regard of any president in seeking judicial confirmees. Ginsburg and Breyer are dependable leftwingers. Souter was a major GOP disappointment which was avowed not to be repeated with the sending up of Alito and Roberts. Obviously as well,it is the ''stated purpose''of everyone who has a political axe to grind to get their people in. Not simply the ''religious right'',which is a fallacy on its face. The National Organization of Women. The Progressive Caucus. GREENPEACE,The SIERRA CLUB,the AFL-CIO,Planned Parenthood,Citizens for Gun Control,all want a piece of the judicial action. None of these groups can be termed in any way,shape or form,as ''impartial''or ''moderate''.