Supreme court infighting

I have no clue whom the President will choose to nominate to replace Judge O'Connor, only that he will continue to stay true to his axioms: he will follow what he sees to be the correct process in selecting the person, and he will make his choice based on a small number of simple yet comprehensive axioms that he uses in managing his decisions as Chief Executive. Being a republican, I of course give him the benefit of the doubt and see the other side as a den of viputerating abydocomist slander-mongers, and so I am as sure that the President will make as wise a choice as it is in his power to do as I am that that person, regardless of merit, will be tarred and feathered in so many ways that competent jurists will scatter to the winds rather than undergo that gauntlet. SCOTUS Blog prepares the way for this, by reviewing the way the opposition plans to run a direct appeal to the public in the style of a direct-election campaign, with an emphasis on outcomes instead of process, as well as a mighty helping of slander.

Althouse is predicting Chief Justice Rhenquist will retire so that instead of having two all-out wars over the court, we can consolidate into one handy-dandy all-out war. And Pejman notes the gentle handling that Ruth Bader Ginsburg got at the hands of congress, and discusses the chances of that happening again.

As we contemplate the coming battle, we should consider this refreshing reminder of the historical perspective on the job of the Supreme Court, from the St. Louis Post Dispatch. (hat tip: Q and O)

Alexander Hamilton, defending the Constitution in the "Federalist Papers," assured his compatriots that laws would be judged only according to the actual words ratified by the states. "There is not a syllable in the plan which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution," he wrote, acknowledging that "if courts interpreted laws according to the spirit rather than the letter, it would enable the court to mold them [laws] into whatever shape it may think proper. With this power, the judiciary could become more powerful than the expressed will of the people."