Son of Chefjef on Judicial Nominations

***
The debate on judicial nominations continues. Chefjef's latest first; my comments follow.
Monk
***

Great response, as always. I don't disagree with any of your analyisis; as usual - not always, but usual - your logic is as acute as a Vulcan's. What I take issue with is some of your premises. BTW, I am not a liberal, I'm a moderate. I have never been a liberal. I have been a conservative, though.

First, the underlying judicial philospohy of the left (as a whole) is not motivated by relativism. That just isn't true. No way to prove it to you than to have you read volumes of original-source legal writings, as oppossed to second source, biased material. [Same is true for the Left by the way, a number of whom think right-wing judicial philosophy is a form of conservative conspiracy which seeks to divide society by class and concentrate power and wealth among the "privileged," which of course isn't true; there is a core of moral, economic and philosophic principles that underly a substantial portion of the right's jurisprudence. A lack of thorough reading of origianl source material, again, serves (along with partisanhip) as the basis for believing otherwise].

Second, I don't think that her judgeship's belief was simply that the perpetrator had a "kill whitey" social agenda. In fact, I agreed with the majortiy opinion, overall, in the Dougan case. However, I may have been swayed byt he minority had they provided some specific empirical evidence to support a couple fo their assertions.

Third, you said "My concern throughout was simply that she might not be in such a state and that no court had ever taken the time to rationally and professionally re-examine whether she was, given that there were doubts about the husband's motives and the doctor's stake in saving his reputation if his diagnosis was amiss." Two problems there. Where di this "doubt" come from. After reviewing the extensive record - which neither you nor I have done -liberal, conservative and moderate judges at the local, state and federal level never had that doubt, which is why (under the letter AND spirit of the law dating back to our founding) they did not hold a de novo review. So, when you say there was "doubt," among whom? There was an emotional plea by loving family that was seized upon by professional PR folks paid for by certain other folks within conservative politics and purposely used the issue for political gain (with a concomitant movement among certain leftist political folks who thought it a good idea to seek to gain political ground by co-opting and misusing the circumstances (did you notice how all of a sudden Democrats a "precedential, rule of law" organization?)

In conclusion, I [link to] the full appellate opinion in the Dougan case (BTW, in reading the forward, note that at some point, even the majority had vacated Dougan's death sentence - see paragraph 12 - and remanded the case for rehearing, then affirmed the second, subsequent death sentence): JOHN JACOB DUGAN vs. STATE OF FLORIDA

Chefjef

******
I have read the decision and, again, defer to Chefjef's superior grasp of the specific legal issues involved, but--also again--reiterate that the two liberal justices' dissenting opinion fails to meet any "reasonable man" test and that the appointment of people with such beliefs represents a potential threat to liberty. If Dugan's "civil rights activities, his community, social, health, and welfare work, and...the racial unrest at the time of this murder" offer ANY exoneration of what Dugan did, thus warranting a lesser sentence, then Hitler could have (had he not turned his brain into a spray of Teppischfresher jelly) claimed the same defense. After all, he built the Autobahn and made the trains run on time. How's that for "community service?"

And if a morally relativist materialism (in its modern American left-wing incarnation) didn't inform these two judges dissenting opinion, what did? I can't speak for the entirety of the liberal legal establishment, but I can say that much of what I have read and read of is informed by the deconstructionist, legal positivist, legal realist, and/or critical legal studies schools; that these perspectives are taught in many of our nation's prominent law schools (including my own alma mater, George Mason); and that these schools of thought are explicit outgrowths of relativist materialism (even though some are quite old). Now, perhaps Chefjef, having attended a smaller Southern, Christian law school, didn't encounter much of this during his education--good on him! It may help to account for his superior judgement in some matters. But many lawyers do embrace these schools, most of them are liberal activists, and their particular intellectual disorder is part of the same old relativist enemy Christianity has been fighting for two centuries now. The judges in question--and Chefjef, in their defense--may not acknowledge their perspective as relativist (and, it seems, CLS in particular), but if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, burps feathers when you step on it, and goes well with wonton wrappers and hoisin sauce, chances are it's a duck.

As to the Schiavo case, I believe I said that it might have been an error from a legal perspective to give Terri's family what it wanted, but that I believed that it was at least possible that the legal establishment's perspective was in error too, from a medical perspective, and that the court should err on the side of defending the life of one who was unable to defend herself. There was at least circumstantial evidence throughout the last rounds of the case that the medical fact-finding primarily involved the judgement of one physician only, one who might have had professional reasons not to wish his diagnosis contradicted. All Terri's family and supporters were asking (the reasonable ones among them, at least) was an independent medical determination of her mental condition. A PET scan. Some additional CT work (the one submitted in evidence wound up on the internet awhile back and was thought, by independent professionals, to have been primitive (late-80s equipment, very fuzzy), inconclusive, and to have included the possibility of some higher brain function--I wish I could find the links again). I believe it was error on the judges part not to have allowed this--it would have cleared up the case in everyone's mind and then perhaps we wouldn't have had all the media BS, clothes-tearing, and wailing and gnashing of teeth. It might have been legal error in the strictest sense, but error on the side of defending defenseless human life is not such a very bad thing.

Monk