Standard Mischief

I am neutral on the Miers nomination

I can’t properly state that I understand the Judiciary completely.

I can’t understand why some cases can go in front of the court immediately and see verdicts immediately (like those flag burning test cases that had laws struck down within 48 hours) and some verdicts don’t get reported until the last possible moment (like the verdict in the “Gun-Free School Zones Act” United States v. Lopez (1995))

I don’t understand why those supremes would deny hearing an important case, dismissing it on procedural grounds, when it covers an important issue that needs to be addresses in the highest court. (Elk Grove v. Newdow) Isn’t that what we pay them for?

For that matter, if we oppose the government on a policy, like “material witness” indefinite imprisonment, why must we have standing before we can get a judgment? I’m surely not going to have the legal resources if I wait to file until after they have put me behind bars. If we oppose an unconstitutional gun law should we have to risk prison in order to challenge it?

I can’t see why we have the transparent overlord BS that is legalese. Court “pleadings” that “pray” for a resolution. You can shove that crap up your ex post facto.

I can’t fathom the logic a successful court judge must have. The judge must balance handing down suitable verdicts while not setting too many precedents. If a judge doesn’t hold “hot button issue” cards close to the chest, he or she will never be confirmed.

I don’t understand why we don’t impeach more judges when they don’t conform to a strict constitutional interpretation.

I don’t understand why we give judges the option to have such a easy retirement, “Senior status“, unless that’s a way to hand off the “hot button issue” cases to someone who isn’t gonna ever be a supreme.

I can’t support Miers. Even if people listened to me and Miers was rejected, we wouldn’t get a replacement that was anywhere near suitable either, so I can’t rightly oppose her. In this case neutral = indifferent.