Patterico's Pontifications

3/9/2007

Confirm Them Finishes Q&A with Jan Crawford Greenburg

Filed under: General,Judiciary — Patterico @ 12:01 am



Parts II and III of Confirm Them’s Q&A with Jan Crawford Greenburg are up.

Part II is here. Quotable:

As incredible as it may seem, Stevens insists he hasn’t changed, that he’s the same “conservative” that President Ford nominated in 1975. I interviewed him for Nightline in January after Ford’s funeral, and he was adamant. “I don’t really think I’ve changed. I think there have been a lot of changes in the Court,” he said. “I can see myself as a conservative, to tell you the truth, a judicial conservative.” And he didn’t laugh. He was sincere. He meant it.

Heh. What a maroon.

Part III is, in my view, more interesting. It is here. Quotable, re the predicted outcome of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban case:

Based on the arguments, I think the Court will uphold the federal partial-birth abortion ban, and I expect it to overturn Stenberg, which split the Court 5-4 in 2000, with O’Connor casting the decisive vote against similar laws in about 30 states. Now I know that Anthony Kennedy can back away from his position in Stenberg. And I know lots of you (ok, probably most of you) think he will. I don’t. He was outraged by Stenberg. He clearly felt had by O’Connor and Souter. He believed they’d walked away from the deal the three struck in Casey. To Kennedy, Casey meant that legislatures still had a voice in the abortion debate. The government could make moral choices. But Stenberg, he believed, said the opposite. When coupled with his powerful dissent in Hill v. Colorado, it’s hard for me to see how Kennedy could view it so differently now.

I know! I know! It’s Justice Kennedy! He can change his mind! And he may. But even if he does, that means we’ll get a narrowly written opinion that still upholds the law. That’s what most seasoned court watchers are predicting—including people with very good track records, like the National Journal’s Stuart Taylor. (I really should know better than betting against Stuart.)

Interesting. I don’t trust Anthony Kennedy further than I could throw Michael Moore. But I’m slightly heartened by this take.

If the Supreme Court interests you at all, I once again recommend Ms. Greenburg’s book. Buy it here.

6 Responses to “Confirm Them Finishes Q&A with Jan Crawford Greenburg”

  1. Seems like she really “get’s it” in terms of how individual Justices are honestly percieved by principled ideologues on either side of the debate. Why is this seemigly so tough for other reporters on the Supreme Court beat?

    Justin Levine (0e3bb1)

  2. Heh. What a maroon.

    Heh. You said it all.

    Attila (Pillage Idiot) (68fd1f)

  3. “the government could make moral choices.”

    morality is the province of individuals, not artificial entities such as governments or corporations. libertarians read your sentence as “some people in the government can impose their morality on all.” i don’t like politicians who tout their morality (joe lieberman is the first name that came to mind). the best government empowers its citizens to make their own moral choices.

    assistant devil's advocate (987863)

  4. I bought the book and read it on Patterico’s recommendation. Loved it. Patterico was right that she “gets” judicial conservatives (even if maybe she doesn’t agree with them). I’m sure she didn’t mean for the book to have this effect, but it’s Exhibit #1 in the case of O’Connor as Worst Justice Ever. Reading the description of her “free as a bird”, no-philosophy-philosophy and its attendant practical effects makes me a little sick, frankly.

    I was also fascinated by the discussion of how a judge without a foundation (O’Connor, Kennedy) is so easily swayed by personal feelings, such as O’Connor’s move to the right because Bill Brennan hurt her feelings once. When you think about it, it’s a little despicable.

    I therefore also disagree with Greenburg (if I’m remembering her statements accurately) about how future (and possible current) Presidents should take into account the likelihood that a “more extreme” justice (such as a Thomas) will “push” the moderate judges in the opposite direction. Kennedy is already in control of the current Court, you want his hypothetical hissy-fit to control future Courts as well? No thanks. The President ought to assume that the justices of the Supreme Court are adults and can deal with the terrible, terrible angst of having a colleague disagree with them publicly.

    Jinnmabe (cc24db)

  5. ada, #3,

    That’s absolutely silly. Such a government would last all of three seconds. People are weak and rebellious. Few have the capacity to make moral choices that lead to the survival and propagation of a society. They must be herded and enticed like unruly longhorns, with whips and brands, and with bread, circuses and slogans. Their only worth is their capacity for taxable income and children who may be better than they are. The few who are capable of making moral choices must damn their own souls to preserve a society in which these already damned souls will enjoy the only life they will ever have.

    nk (db0112)

  6. […] Patterico draws attention to the key quote from Confirm Them’s interview with Jan Crawford Greenburg. Based on the arguments, I think the Court will uphold the federal partial-birth abortion ban, and I expect it to overturn Stenberg, which split the Court 5-4 in 2000, with O’Connor casting the decisive vote against similar laws in about 30 states. Now I know that Anthony Kennedy can back away from his position in Stenberg. And I know lots of you (ok, probably most of you) think he will. I don’t. He was outraged by Stenberg. He clearly felt had by O’Connor and Souter. He believed they’d walked away from the deal the three struck in Casey. To Kennedy, Casey meant that legislatures still had a voice in the abortion debate. The government could make moral choices. But Stenberg, he believed, said the opposite. When coupled with his powerful dissent in Hill v. Colorado, it’s hard for me to see how Kennedy could view it so differently now. […]

    FreePA.org » Blog Archives » Will the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban be upheld? (91a138)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0880 secs.