Peggy Noonan is Insane!

[neoteric lefty]

She is on Hardball and is talking about how abortion was thrust upon the country via judicial activism. When is the role of the Supreme Court guaranteed in the US constitution considered Judicial Activism! Freaking blows my mind.

[Bandit]

1. When they step into an election and stop the counting of votes

They don't get more activist than that.

[Zhade]

66. Indeed. Which DUer has that Wil Wheaton sig quote?

Very astute observation by the former Star Trek actor...!

[neoteric lefty]

2. BTW

I didn't hear any Republicans bitch and moan when the SCOTUS elected our president. F-ing hypocrites! I swear.

[Jawja]

3. Like all Repukes,

she overlooks the "elephant in the room", which is "judicial activism" put her boy in the White House.

Their hypocricy never ceases to amaze me.

Why don't they just come right and say that they really don't like the Constitution and our system of government? They'd rather have the religious tyranny of a majority butt into the personal lives of a minority.

[Maat]

9. Exactly.

The Religious Extremists have no place in our Democracy. I'm the most live-and-let-live person around ... but certain nutty relatives won't let me live ... in peace. I had to lay down the law. This is a tolerant, inclusive liberal Democratic household. We go to a 'liberal' congregation. Intolerance/exclusiveness will not be allowed. Take the negativity elsewhere! My kid is being raised in a positive environment (Smart Alec 7-year-old. Every once in awhile she gets a smile on her face and states that she is moving in the nutty relatives and registering as a Republican. Daddy told her that would drive me crazy.)

[StClone]

4. Political Buzzword

Activism is a Think Tank term I'm sure.

It means "enlightened Judges that are at odds with Conservative thought or their political base."

[distortionmarshall]

29. more specifically.....

.... it's one of newt gingrich's VRWC terms....

http://carmen.artsci.washington.edu/propaganda/newt.htm

tried n true....

[neoteric lefty]

5. oh god!

now they have Bill Donahue, of the Catholic League (or something). He's quite a big bigot. I remember he said something like all gays are gonna burn and hell or something.

[kskiska]

7. Hitchens was good, though

for a change. He hated the movie.

[emulatorloo]

6. Not insane, just soulless and evil

These people will argue anything, say anything that it takes to misrepresent reality. It is all about distorting the truth to make it seem like Republicans are oh so wonderful. I have come to really really really dislike Peggy more than any of the other repug talking heads, because she just appears to be so "reasonable."

Give me Ann Coulter anyday, it is clear to EVERYONE by now that she is an insane attention freak. But Peggy just seems so "reasonable" and sane, no matter what crazy crap she is spouting. Ugh!

[Jawja]

8. Like Peggy,

when they say "the majority of Americans" don't want gay marriage or abortion, they are really saying they don't believe in the Constitution or our system of government. The system protects a minority from the religious beliefs of a majority.

I say they are all UNAMERICAN. They really hate the U.S. Constitution because it gets in their way.

[Maat]

11. Exactly.

[calimary]

13. Peggy Noonan was Reagan's "Monica."

She drools over him more than he does, himself.

SORRY! Rather crass. Shouldn't make fun of the old geezer. So I'll just confine it to Peggy-dear. Reagan doesn't know which end is up, at this point. Unfortunately, Peggy doesn't, either.

[coltman]

45. Noonan

Take a close or even quick look at Nancy maybe he wouldn't be brain dead if he had a Monica.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kiahzero]

17. Gee... I seem to recall something about the First Amendment

not establishing a state religion. Writing laws simply because of a theological belief seems like establishing a state religion to me... I'm pretty sure case precendent agrees with me, as well.

The Warren Court was one of the best things to happen to this country... Let's look at some of the decisions to come out of the Warren Court:

Brown v. Board of Education
Loving v. Virginia (inter-racial marriage - probably will come up soon in front of Billy Rhenquist and the Supremes)
Miranda v. Arizona
Reynolds v. Sims (Equal Representation in voting districts)
South Carolina v. Katzenburg (Constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act of 1965)
United States v. O'Brien (Compelling Gov't interest to limit symbolic speech)

Maybe it's just me, but I liked being able to go to integrated schools. I like being able to marry a woman of another race if I so desire.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Diogenes2]

33. Constitutional?

So was Brown vs. Board of Education constitutional or your despised judicial activism? Curious to know your opinion, thanks.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[maryallen]

38. Of the Zell Miller variety?

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

48. Thank you

Hopefully the wind will be taken out of his balloon. He has a tendency to post 'n' run.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mzmolly]

10. She should at least clarify *SAFE/LEGAL ABORTION!*

And, yes she is friggin insane. :crazy: Abortion existed in ancient times, perhaps she is unaware.

[displacedtexan]

12. PN certainly seems happy with her new face work.

Chiseled and tightened.

Would be interesting to see before and after pics.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kiahzero]

16. Amendment 3, 4 and 9:

Amendment III: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The principle behind Roe is that the people have a fundamental right to privacy (3 and 4 certainly imply it, given that the government isn't allowed to live in your home, and isn't even allowed to check your stuff out unless it has good reason... Griswold is also precedent for this). From there, it is necessary to determine whether the government has a compelling interest in violating this right. The Court found that there was no government interest in forcing mothers to carry fetuses to term, up until the fetus hits certain points in the developmental process.

As for your complaining about judicial review, I call bullshit. The only people I've seriously heard complain about it are crazed right-wingers who insist that the legislature can do whatever it damn well pleases. Here's a suggestion - read Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America", and learn about the tyranny of the majority.

I ask you - what the hell would the point of the Constitution be, if the legislature could wantonly violate it, and there weren't a check upon it?

And judicial activism - it's become a bullshit codeword. Bush v. Gore wasn't "judicial activism," it was just a crappy decision. "Judicial Activism" is what conservatives use to describe court decisions that actually uphold people's rights. It's a shame the meme has caught on among liberals.

On edit: Just remembered - you're the POSC professor... theoretically, you've read Tocqueville. How'd you come away from that without understanding and supporting the role of the courts in protecting minority thought from the tyranny of the majority?

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[neoteric lefty]

22. so...

you don't believe that citizens have the right to privacy guaranteed under the law? I am just wondering.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[neoteric lefty]

32. read my text

I did not say the constitution. I said the law of the land.
The Privacy Act of 1974 and the judiciary decisions in 1890 - Warren & Brandeis (privacy and the press), 1967 - supreme court (wiretapping), & 1974 - supreme court (bank records)

all supporting privacy...

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[neoteric lefty]

35. thats a pretty tough definition

right (n.) - Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature.


Good, debating with you Dr. I am off to a party. Night :)

[knight_of_the_star]

36. No right to privacy?

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That plus Amendment IV which doesn't allow for the government to barge in on you and search your home without a warrent seems to imply that there IS one.

And I hate to break it to you, but the Supreme Court has both

1.) Been running on the idea of judicial review for over one hundred years. It is the accepted way of doing things.

2.) The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. If they find that the Constitution gives something, it holds.

[depakid]

37. Don't confuse him with Marbury v. Madison

(which really was judicial activism at its finest).

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kiahzero]

50. Just a question

I'm not going to try to defend myself against a Ph.D in a field where I am a lowly undergrad - I'll lose, even if my position is, in fact, correct.

However, I do have a question for you: Given the history of the United States not enforcing rights that clearly are in the Constitution (the First Amendment comes to mind), is it not possible that those rights you speak of were protected all along, and were simply ignored?

One other point - the Ninth Amendment allows for the protection of additional rights not articulated within the Constitution.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

69. You conveniently ignored Amendment IX...

1. The Constitutional passages you cited say nothing about abortion. Nor do they say anything about privacy.

<SNIP>

Now if those passages did not take the power to regulate abortion away from the states at the moment they were placed in the Constitution, than it is absurd to say that they now magically do.

Interesting. Let's look at Amendment IX again:

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, just because a right to have an abortion is not specifically enumerated DOES NOT mean that NO SUCH RIGHT EXISTS!

Amendment IX is probably the BEST part of the Constitution. It ensures that the Constitution remains a living document that can adjust with the times.

[HootieMcBoob]

18. Most of Americans were probably against integration too

A lot of Americans were for Jim Crowe laws.

was Brown vs the Board of Education judicial activism?

The Supreme Court steps in when the politicians are too lazy, cowardly, or corrupt to do the right thing.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[neoteric lefty]

19. hey doctor, nice to meet you

Forgive me, I am no legal scholar, I am just a humble engineer. But you argue judicial review was never given to the SCOTUS and that may be true of the federal levels of government. To my understanding, the SCOTUS can review lawsuits between citizens and their own states. Correct me if I am wrong. It sounds like that power of the judiciary is directly implied by the 11th amendment. If it expressly says that the judicial branch cannot extend to citizens suing a state that they do not live in. That seems to me, that they can extend to citizens vs. their own state.

Next, You say there is nothing that guarantee's the right to an abortion. You are correct that the term abortion never appears in the USC but as you would have read in the legal brief, they ruled under the 14th amendment which Section 1 states:

"...No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The concurring opinion stated that the state of Texas' criminal abortion laws infringed on a Jane Roe's right to privacy <"a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy">.

Like I said, I am not a constitutional scholar but I don't see a conclusive argument that the Supreme Court was over-reaching in their RvW decision. Let me know why I am not correct in this conclusion.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[depakid]

30. I won't belabor the issue of judicial activism BUT

I think your reading of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED.

Like many people who follow your absurd style of "original intent" jurisprudence, you aren't even consistent within your own doctrine. Privacy rights- one of those pesky unenumerated rights retained by the people under the 9th Amendment (see. e.g., Griswold v, Connecticut) weren't expressly included in the Constitution for a very simple reason that any credible historian would point out in a heartbeat: the word "privacy" had a different denotation in the 18th Century than it does today. Think of the word "privy" (no, not the council) or the word "privates." THAT's what the word meant back then, and the framers would have considered it vulgar the use that term- so of course they didn't. Even so, they surely wouldn't have approved of government intruding into people's bedrooms or into decisions made by their physicians.

Moreover, one of the main arguments against enumerating a Bill of Rights in the first place is because of the very arguments that original intenters are constantly hoisting on us- that unless the right is enumerated, it wouldn't protected. The Constitution was meant to enumerate and LIMIT government's rights- not the people's.

The Constitution, like the language in it, is continually evolving. It's not a static document and must necessarily be interpreted in changing contexts. ALL laws must.

It's also foolish to assert that all rights or liberty interests may be taken away provided that there's due process. Rubbish. You have to be convicted of a valid crime first- that's the heart of the issue. In Griswold, the "crime" was dispensing birth control. In Roe and the companion case, the "crime" was abortion. The court ruled in both instances that states could not make the exercise of one's personal, marital, familial, sexual privacy and reproductive rights a crime (at least through the first trimester).

To warrant their decision, the court went through an exhaustive discussion of history, common law and medicine. Furthermore, when considered alongside the courts previous decisions regarding privacy in one's own bedroom- like Mapp, Loving and others, the decision makes perfect sense, not only in terms of an accurate reading of Constitutional law, but also in terms of stare decisis.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[depakid]

46. You miss the point

Roe and Griswold both recognized a right to marital, sexual and reproductive privacy that already existed and had been developing in federal case law in other areas for decades. The fact that it may have been proscribed by states in the past has no bearing whatsoever on its legitimacy; many rights we take for granted have been denied by states. That's not circular reasoning, it's historical exigency.

The 14th Amendment doctrine of incorporation was implemented slowly over time (which is to say that a case or controversy had to arise and be properly presented before the Court). So it was with Ms. Mapp and the 4th Amendment, Mr. Gideon and the 5th Amendment right to counsel and Mr. Escobedo with the right against self incrimination. Were one to follow your line of reasoning, the fact that states had been violating these rights for almost a hundred years after the 14th Amendment was ratified would mean that they didn't exist, either! Sorry, but there's no waiver or laches here....

If direct textual references were all there was to law- no interpretation- then we'd be still be mired in the 18th Century. Absurdities and injustices would be commonplace. (Actually they are, but that's another matter). We wouldn't need to train lawyers and judges. We could simply apply the code, much like a computer.

Of course, that's not how the system works- not in real life, and if you've ever filed a legal pleading in an unusual case, you know that. It's the basis for our entire legal history! We operate under the the British system of common law- not Napoleonic codes. And certainly not codes which are unsceptible to changing times and semantics-

That's why original intenters don't carry the day- and it's why (as you have noted) judicial activism (in your broad definition) happens on both sides of the aisle.

BTW: Bush v. Gore was judicial activism at its worst. It was not only a dishonest case in terms of doctrine (see Alabama v. Garrett, February 2001) but it violated the Courts age old rule of denying judicial review to "political questions."

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[depakid]

65. Actually, I understand your position quite well

in fact, back when it came into vogue under Ed Meese during the Reagan administration, I used an original intent argument in a 4th Amendment school search and siezure question on the California Bar exam! I even quoted colonial lawyer James Otis' statement about the Writ of Assistence placing "the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer." (of course that was only one argument out of many- and certainly not the "black letter law"- which had recently been set out in New Jersey v T.L.O (a case that I think was wrongly decided). Don't know whether the grader gave me any points on it though, since they don't return the exams.

The bottom line is that the Federalist Society and others who continue to spout this doctrine have a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the law works- and what its purposes are. One of the core functions of the judiciary is the prevention of a tyranny of the majority (or tyranny of the moneyed interests), which is exactly what results from the twisted application of "original intent." Furthermore, you couldn't be more wrong about there no longer being any need for the common law. We may well need it now more than ever.

As societal mores change and advances are made in technology, interpretations of the law must change with them. What may not have been cruel and unusual punishment in 1789 probably is today. Whatever your philosophical views, it's impractical to think that legislatures can or will address all of the myriad issues- in many cases they can't even deal with the most pressing ones at hand! Yet cases still come before the courts, and lawyers and judges must deal with them- hopefully in a manner that furthers justice and equity. That, my friend, is called the spirit of the law- and it endures, despite concerted efforts to kill it.

Returning to Roe and Griswold- those were cases that the founding fathers could never dreamed of. They involved medical advances- such as safe and effective birth control and abortions that simply weren't available during the time period that you lay claim to. What the Supreme court did- as it did in Brown, was apply the general principles in the Constitution and Bill of Rights to the new situations that arose. That's their job. They create, modify and dispense with often complicated legal standards and sort out competing interests. If Congress and state legislatures want to overturn their decisions- well, guess what? There's a constitution mechanism to do just that.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[depakid]

70. Don't look now, but your true colors are showing

That was too easy. Like mice to the cheese.

I doubt you've ever tried a case or you wouldn't have allowed yourself to be baited like that. Cross-X 101.

Don't get me wrong- I do believe in justice and equity, as I believe in the spirit of the law, but it's unlikely I would have used them the way I did in the kind of policy debate we've been having unless I wanted to provoke a reaction- like the one I just got.

Your vision of our legal system (aside from being practically untanable) invokes a nightmare- a technocratic dystopia divorced from humanity- one where where concepts like mercy, compassion- and yes, justice and equity- have no meaning. A place where Magaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale could easily become a reality.

I am curious about one thing, though. Were you wronged in some way? What is the source of your antipathy toward judges? Your posts just seethe with enmity, which in my experience, doesn't come from book learning.

[neoteric lefty]

31. well

Nowhere in the constituion does it enumerate the state's right to control an unborn child. The 14th amendment states that citizens are born or naturalized into the United States. Therefore, an unborn baby is considered property of the woman, and since it is not an external property, how can that state deprive the woman control of her unborn child? There must be reason for the state to do so. Whether the safety of the mother or the safety or of others. That is a moot point 30 years ago since abortions could be done without significant risk to the mother. Therefore, no reason to outlaw the procedure. That is how i see it.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kiahzero]

47. Here, I can demonstrate that you are wrong

Amendment I: "Congress shall pass no law... abridging the freedom of speech."

Followed almost immediately by the Alien & Sedition Acts.

This nation has a long history of ignoring the principles of the Constitution in the name of "security," for example.

On Edit: Realizing my post is a little unclear in retrospect, I am referring to this quote:
Well, if this is true, than somehow all the people that worked on the drafting of that amendment, all the people who voted on it in Congress, all the people that voted to ratify itin the state legislatures, and all the people who lived under it, all the lawyers who litigated it, and all the judges who rendered decisions regarding it, failed to notice this inclusion for over 100 years.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wellstone_democrat]

51. Marbury vs. Madison

surely with a JD and a PhD you know the history of SC review?

Most of the nation actually opposed the May 17, 1954 ruling as well: Brown vs. the Topeka kansas board of ed

How do you stand on the "private" ruling in the Bush case from SC in Dec 2000? Any problem with that end run around established law on state regulation of voting?

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Catshrink]

26. Check out what her HS classmates say

http://www.mediawhoresonline.com/pegnoonan.htm

They talk about her transformation... bottom line: she's a nutcase.

[Gloria]

52. Hey, I didn't realize it was still up at MWO!!!!

Monica and I reunited because of Peggy Noonan about 33 years after graduation!!

I take pride in the fact that I laid out the yearbook that contained that picture!

[KharmaTrain]

39. JDPhd...A Question

I've found this string facinating. A question that comes to mind is isn't it the state courts that really have the judicial review authority in most states? It was supposed to be the state courts that did all the heavy lifting, and as you note, the Federal to just oversee the constitution.

I keep in context the size of this nation when that document was written, as well as the times. The main purpose of the Constitution, IMHO, was more to confederate the biggest needs...national defense, specifically, and leave everything else to the states.

Obviously with communications, travel, commerce and the ever shrinking state borders, the federal has grown in its need, responsibilty and jurdisdiction...and that that has set the federal courts in the "activism" mode as we are such a nation in constant transit.

I'm one who thinks our federal government long overgrew its size and purpose and now perpetuates its own welfare system tapping into the unlimited tax revenues and borrowing power of the U.S. Treasury. The judicial is currently under attack since it is one of the last bases of power the right wing doesn't have control of and are going to take advantage of their current situation. The Democrats would and have done the same thing as well. It's great when it's your team, unfair when it's the other guy.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KharmaTrain]

71. A Little Further Clarification

Thanks for your very well worded and easily read response.

One thing I forgot to mention in my view of the federal, and especially the judiciary and you hit on with protecting the smaller states from the larger ones (the major debate at the Constitutional Convention) and that the the judiciary specifically would arbitrate disputes between states.

Now, notice I mention states, as opposed to individuals. This would be where the states themselves or their representatives would deal with their disputes and then the appelate process was to provide the review and oversight. In my view, the Supreme Court's original role was minimal...the last part of the line that should have been adjudicated long previous.

In many cases I feel the court held true for the first 150 years...but as the nation expanded so did the federal government; growing bolder as states sugjugated their authority to the federal, through the courts. This really took off under both Roosevelts and the Federal courts now handle the biggest cases, the largest money thus wield the most power, and with it comes even more authority and so on...

Yes, I feel there is a hypocrisy in a Shumer or a Leahy when they speak of the biases of the nominees they block (and it should be noted these are a rare few), being that if the shoe were on the other foot (like a Bill Lan Lee) they were flying off the deep end just like the Conservative Repugnicans are now.

Honestly, I have no idea how to reverse the trend of large government/large judiciary that enables "activist judiciary" on a federal level and many would think I'm a hypocrite in being a Progressive who favors strong state rights, but I feel problems are always best solved at home.

Cheers!

[Disturbed]

57. Peggy

She's another phony media whore. I watched her once but after that I change the station when I see her smug face.

[Must_B_Free]

60. Peggy Sanean is Inoon!

[Zinfandel]

62. Yes, she is...no doubt!

[Must_B_Free]

63. whatever's coming to her - she deserves it

she's a professional shit eating circus freak.

"Watch in amazement as she passes flaming dung through her lips"

[Hammie]

67. Who is Peggy Noonan

and why do I care what she thinks?