More Politics, re: DeLayFollow

Are you sure that nothing I said followed the logic I was using? Could it possibly have been in the very sentence before the one you quoted? You know. The part that you had to have trimmed from my post when you quoted me?

Sheesh!

Umm... no.

I'm saying it's hypocritical to imply that the papertrail from one is meaningful and that the one from another isn't. It's perfectly acceptable to say "Both papertrails are meaningful though you may arrive at different conclusions based on the contents." In the Miers case, we're told not to consider her past papertrail as relevant to how she'll judge. In the Perkins case, we're told we have to look hard at it because it shows his bias.

If the word from the administration was to carefully consider Miers papertrail on abortion when considering her as Justice, that'd be in line with what's being asked in the Perkins case. If the word from DeLay & Co. was "Perkins' past, while perhaps interesting, isn't really an indicator to how he'll perform on the bench" that would be in line with the Miers case. At no time did I say the results from considering one had to be identical to the results from considering the other.

Neph attempted to point to the age of the questionniare as reason to not consider it. I remarked that Miers has yet to renounce it so there's no reason to guess that her views have changed and we have what evidence we have until shown otherwise. Neph also pointed out Perkins' financial contribution and I pointed out Miers' financial contribution to anti-abortion groups. Moe, Flea and I got into a tangent on morality which, while fun, wasn't really apropos to the thrust of the OP.

Edited, Mon Oct 24 20:03:54 2005 by Jophiel

Joph. You're still ignoring all three of the reasons I listed earlier though. They are completely different issues. You're trying to make it seem like they are very similar, but the only thing they really have in common is that both involve a judge (which isn't even technically true since Mier's isn't a judge yet).


It's not about ignoring a papertrail. I'm not sure where you get that. It's about placing accurate value to things in those paper trails in the context of the decision to be made.

- Does a potential SCOTUS justice's previous statements about a broad political issue have any bearing on their ability to serve on the court? No. It doesn't. In fact, as I've mentioned every time we've discussed this issue, Congress is specifically not supposed to approve justices based on issues, but ability to serve. While that issue may be of value to the general public, it's not something that can possibly disqualify her from service, so it doesn't (and shouldn't!) recieve a great deal of weight or discussion in the context of her appointment. Not at a congressional level at least.

- Does a judge's recent donations to a political organization in direct opposition to a defendant set to appear before him constitute a reasonable conflict of interest? I'd say yes. Clearly, he has an "interest" in the outcome of the case. How much is a matter of debate, but that's the point. It *is* something to be debated and concerned about. A conflict of interest *can* be grounds for a judge to recuse himself from proceedings, and so it's extremely relevant to investigate it and ensure that the right action is taken as a result.


The problem is that you are progressing from the base assumption that the two issues are very similar, and so it's logical to question why people would treat them differently. I'm not disagreeing with that level of the logic. If they are similar, then it *is* reasonable to wonder why people would approach them differently. But it's my belief that the two issues are *not* similiar, and so it's not unusual at all for them to be treated differently. Your base assumption is incorrect, so your analysis of the situation based on that assumption is also incorrect.


At least that's my take on it.

Irony?

I think the point is that if we're being told on the one hand that a conservative can put aside her beliefs and rule based solely on the law, we should also accept that a liberal can do the same.

I'm saying that there is no evidence of a conflict. I'm saying there is no evidence of judicial malfeasance at all.

I'm saying if you don't trust one judge to put aside his personal feelings and do his job, you shouldn't trust any of them.

And that's usually done by recusing yourself from a case when it involves something or someone you have a specific personal position on.


Exactly like is being asked of Perkins in this case.


No one said that Perkins can't be a judge because he donates to a political organization. They are saying that he should maybe not try a case that directly affects that organization.

Of course he is. And there's nothing at all wrong with that. Which is why I don't understand the assumption of hypocrisy in this case. There's really no justification for a claim of double standards between Perkins and Miers. That's been my whole point all along.