Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

« Welcome | Main | Ordination of Women »

February 28, 2004

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Evan Donovan

Posted on this, would've trackbacked it if possible. Is that a TypePad Plus feature, or what?

Christopher Jones

Evidently I have to tick "Accept TrackBacks" on each post as I write it. If I can find out how, I'll set TrackBack on by default.

Thomas

Nothing to add to the discussion in the post...not yet, anyway...but what, pray, is a 'trackback' or 'backtrack'? I have no idea what any of these things are. Anyways, peace.

Christopher Jones

Thomas,

I'm not really sure, to tell you the truth - which is why I didn't know to turn it on in the first place. Evan, please enlighten us.

Evan Donovan

Well, since I'd be trackbacking you rather than the other way round, really all it means is that you'll see another link below your post. If you click on that link, a comment box-like thing will pop up which will show that I have written a post on my blog in response to yours. The box will contain both a summary and a link to my post.

Evan Donovan

Well, since I'd be trackbacking you rather than the other way round, really all it means is that you'll see another link below your post. If you click on that link, a comment box-like thing will pop up which will show that I have written a post on my blog in response to yours. The box will contain both a summary and a link to my post.

pduggie

I think a more acceptable way of dealing with the problem of Judges who will miscondtrue the constitution is the impeachment of judges who make those kinds of decisions.

Obviously we have to have some kind of impeachment for misconduct like arbitrary judicial reasoning. And the bar for deciding it should be set high. But judges are just men, and government is just men, and using the decisions of actual people instead of a written document has some advantages.

It needed to have happned long before this point however.

Christopher Jones

For good or ill, pduggie, there is no precedent for the use of impeachment as punishment for a case wrongly decided - even where the decision was egregiously wrong. "High crimes and misdemeanors" is the traditional criterion, rather than dissent from the judges' decrees.

I'm afraid that any attempt to impeach the SJC justices would be widely and loudly condemned as "political"; the firestorm over the Clinton impeachment would seem tame by comparison. Of course, it would be "political," but only because the justices themselves had arrogated to themselves the right to make policy that properly belonged to the political branches in the first place. But don't expect the Left to appreciate that nuance.

The comments to this entry are closed.