You cannot have a team that strikes out this much. It makes it impossible to have any kind of rally, forcing the Reds to rely almost exclusively on home runs (which only rarely come when needed). Teams are throwing first pitch strikes to nearly every Reds batter, because they will either take the pitch or swing for the fences and whiff. Come on, guys. We’re starting practically every AB in a 0-1 hole. Shorten up the swings and try to poke a single. It’ll eventually pay off and pitchers will start having to throw some balls to start an AB.
Now onto Supreme Sunday!
John Paul Stevens announced earlier this week that he’d be retiring, and boy will I miss him! I’ll miss that snappy little bow tie, his ancient jowls, his liberal disposition. But, he’s 89 years old. It’s time.From what I’ve heard, it appears that the liberal members of the court – er, ahem… Democrat-appointed members, have a plan to retire one by one each year of Barack Obama’s tenure in office. This is less a good plan than it is a necessity. It’s clear that the Republican-appointed members of the court will nearly always be unanimous in supporting the conservative side of a decision. That much was clear when they decided to allow corporations to spend freely on elections, a ridiculous decision that one could only come to if seeking to support conservative interests over a proper reading of the law.
(Fine. I am not a lawyer, and I have no real law experience, but I think it’s pretty clear that corporations should not be given the same spending rights as people. I also think it’s clear that giving them that right will certainly help Republican election chances more than it will help the Democrats [although unions can spend freely now as well]. But mostly, the decision puts politicians further into the pockets of special interests, and makes elections more about money than ideas)
So now the liberal members of the court, some of them hanging on by a thread (Justice Stevens was 89. 89!) are planning to retire one by one so Barack Obama can replenish their stocks. It’s unofficial, but seems to me a very calculated plan.
Sadly, the Supreme Court - a body that was meant to be mostly apolitical (which is why there are lifetime appointments) - has become a reflection of the current political landscape in this country: staunch and partisan.
Here's something interesting to think about: Justice Stevens, considered to be the leading liberal on the court, was confirmed 98-0 by the Senate. Antonin Scalia, the court's most mega-conservative, was confirmed 97-0 by the Senate. We'll talk more of Scalia another time (boy, can I talk about Scalia...) but something should strike you by those two facts. It's impossible to imagine even the most centrist of justices being confirmed without any "nays" today, and it's disheartening to see that we've moved into a time when the process of even approving a Supreme Court Justice has become such a divisive matter.
Another interesting thing about Stevens is that he was not considered a liberal at the time of his appointment. Roe v. Wade had just been decided, yet he was asked no questions about the decision during his confirmation hearings (and debate on his confirmation lasted only 5 minutes or so). Rather, it was his support of the death penalty that was looked on as the most important acid test at the time. He was originally for it.
One thing that I really like about Stevens is that he showed the ability to evolve. Serving 34 years on the country's highest legal body, you would expect that one would learn something here and there, and eventually experience change. Stevens, originally thought to be more of a centrist, would become ardently liberal, even changing his opinion on the issue that got him to the court in the first place: the death penalty. Flip-flopping has become a heresy in this country, but I would think that the most intelligent minds are those that are able to adapt to changing circumstances. It takes great courage to look at oneself and realize that you were wrong about something - it takes even more to admit it through actions.
It was just two years ago, in Baze v. Rees, that [Justice Stevens] renounced his support for the death penalty in an opinion grounded not in abstract principle but in years of sorrowful observation of how the death penalty was actually being administered under statutes and Supreme Court opinions that cut off avenues of appeal.
- NY Times
I guess it's not exactly admitting that he was wrong before, but it's still a significant contradiction of his previous self. To me, this represents the epitome of what a Supreme Court judge should be. It shouldn't be about finding someone who adheres to the Democratic or Republican dogmas, but rather, finding someone with a brilliant legal mind and an ability to be moved by good argument. How many of the current justices do you think go into each case already knowing which side that they will take? Scalia for sure. And this is damaging not only to the evolution of the law, but also to the spirit of our legal system.
Now, what are the chances that Barack Obama will appoint someone without thoroughly vetting where they stand on every major Democratic issue? None, whatsoever - and again, this is a necessity with the current political landscape (if you replaced one or two liberal justices with conservatives, it's possible the court could overturn Roe v Wade, and who knows what else), but we need to acknowledge that there is a problem with the high court's polarization. We need to make sure that it is justice and not politics that defines our legal system.
Here's a good article about Stevens and his evolution while on the court.
No comments:
Post a Comment