Tuesday, August 09, 2005

Super Arlen and the Commerce Clause

Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania's senior senator in age, tenure and intelligence, will question John Roberts on the application of the Commerce Clause (CC) and his respect for Congressional authority. Specter's rationale is solid: Roberts' interpretation of the CC, the broadly interpreted bedrock for every expansion of Federal Authority since 1932, is the REAL issue facing this nomination. Liberals have used the CC to impose harsh penalties on wife beaters: Abused women, "...can't effectively participate in the workforce, thereby harming interstate commerce." Conservatives use the CC to exorcize their favorite societal peeves too: "A fetus whose brain has been sucked through a straw cannot participate in the workforce...." Roberts position will have far-reaching applications, and we need to know now.

Dovetailing this issue, Specter rose an equally compelling, and not wholly unrelated, issue. He is angry at the Supreme Court's derisive tone towards Congress. Though I can sympathize with anyone's frustration over the Congress of 'Terri's Law,' I likewise respect Specter's frustration with the smug Ivory Tower intellectualism on the Court. Equally smug Brad Grantz argues a court stacked with legal scholars is a good thing, but that Scholars are often ideological and dogmatic is evident on any college campus. Practicality and pragmatism, with a healthy respect for public will, are critical to good judgement and good judges.

The past 100 years of CC rulings reflect the court's willingness to stay in step with the public rather than holding too closely to the exact wording of the Constitution. Ironically, doing so seems the best method of keeping the Constitution a functioning document. When the Court struck down several provisions of the New Deal, popular opinion nearly permitted FDR to stack the court, thus dangerously expanding Executive power. The Warren Court, considered radical at the time, fostered 30+ years of divisive cultural infighting that percolated to the surface in the form of Jerry Falwell. Holding the Constitution too closely smothers its ability to be a "...living & breathing document," that reflects the changing nature and needs of our Republic.

The Court needs to be pragmatic and assess the climate of the nation. However, the Court must maintain itself as a bastion of impartiality immune to the fickle winds of public opinion. It can neither be a bulwark of fringe special interests nor rule on abstract legal principle alone. It must remember it is an institution of the people, not a college of Oracles. Sandra Day O'Connor struck this balance more than any other justice. Where Roberts falls on the Commerce Clause will provide insight as to whether he is able to do so as well. One opinion about frogs, written on behalf of another Judge, is simply not enough to know where he stands.

5 comments:

CapitolMAN said...

Your ad hominem attacks only burnish my credentials as the only true voice of reason within our (ever-shrinking) circle of friends.

So now Specter and his crew are offended by the trash-talking Reinquist and demand "respect." Arlen doffs the kid gloves! This cliche demand is the purview of rap artists and aging middle linebackers. Grow up.

I make no apologies for being a federalist. Wasn't it the justice department that used the commerce clause to pounce on medical marijuana users in California?

Highland Ave. said...

I figured you would take the masculine approach... never fails. Stiffen up, old boy, and take the heat. Perhaps what you dont realize is that a criticism of Congress can transilate as a proxy criticism of public opinion... especially when Congress is following a popular mandate. Arlen might be offended personally, but I believe he is more concerned with the integrity of the balance of power, and the PG reporter is just a lousy reporter.

An irresponsible, overly ideological court has harmed this nation in the past. The court, not beholden to public opinion, is paradoxically the most powerful and the most vulnerable body in the federal triumverate: reference my two high-profile historical examples. Taking a deeper historical prospective, President Andrew Jackson simply ignored the Court's unpopular rulings wholesale.

We need more practical appointees to secure the security of this branch of government from literally toppling its own influence. Another clod from the judicial mould like Roberts is not the answer.

CapitolMAN said...

Your implication that Judge Roberts has insulated himself from societal goings-on in the ivory pillared halls of justice are without merit. I once again ask you to cite an instance where his rationale is outside the "mainstream."

You've intimated that experience outside the judicial realm makes a candidate more cognizant of social values. Read this, jerky.

http://www.cqpress.com/incontext/SupremeCourt/characteristics.htm

Anonymous said...

'She's got the sloe eyes and bitchin' bod of the . . . ' Oops. There...
As a longtime journalist you'd think he'd know better. He did not. Richard Gee wrote on his blog at SportsJournalists.com about a young woman in a journalism class he was teaching at Boston University: "Of my ...
I have a free accounting software for small business site. It pretty much covers free accounting software for small business related stuff.

Come and check it out if you get time :-)

Anonymous said...

Eco-Entrepeneurs Find New Approach to Building a Sustainable Economy...
Brooklyn, NY -Jennifer Boulden, president of the Anavo Group, and Heather Stephenson, president of Urban Sage, have joined together to create the Ideal Bite, Inc.
Nice blog. Covers the topics that I'm looking for. Will check back each week to see what's going on.

I also have a laptop bags web site/blog. Dealing with laptop bags related items. Check it out if you get a chance.