I am worried about her resignation, but do not believe for one minute that she should be castigated for stepping down. Justices are allowed to have lives too. She is seventy-five, and her husband is older and has Alzheimer's. I can fully understand her stepping down to spend whatever time he may have left in his company.
Also, someone on my friends' list posted something that they had received from MoveOn.org, about the threat to our nation this presents. They referred to GW's admiration of Scalia and Thomas as ideal justices, and then went on to list all the decisions that Scalia and Thomas dissented in, claiming that another justice would shift the court firmly in their camp. They then list all the areas in which a Thomas and Scalia went against the majority, including...
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, which blocked the government from indefinitely detaining American citizens without charges, an attorney, or any basic rights.
Um, yeah. Thomas dissented in that one, basically arguing that the government should be able to do whatever the hell they wanted. Scalia dissented, arguing that the majority had not gone far enough in setting up due process, but should force the administration to either charge Hamdi with treason or release him. He was joined in his dissent by Stevens, of all people. Two VERY different positions. (Scalia's dissent in Hamdi was one of the most masterfully written opinion in a few years.)
I know it is necessary to stir people to action, but that's no excuse for misleading them. It's at the very least really sloppy.
Also, someone on my friends' list posted something that they had received from MoveOn.org, about the threat to our nation this presents. They referred to GW's admiration of Scalia and Thomas as ideal justices, and then went on to list all the decisions that Scalia and Thomas dissented in, claiming that another justice would shift the court firmly in their camp. They then list all the areas in which a Thomas and Scalia went against the majority, including...
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, which blocked the government from indefinitely detaining American citizens without charges, an attorney, or any basic rights.
Um, yeah. Thomas dissented in that one, basically arguing that the government should be able to do whatever the hell they wanted. Scalia dissented, arguing that the majority had not gone far enough in setting up due process, but should force the administration to either charge Hamdi with treason or release him. He was joined in his dissent by Stevens, of all people. Two VERY different positions. (Scalia's dissent in Hamdi was one of the most masterfully written opinion in a few years.)
I know it is necessary to stir people to action, but that's no excuse for misleading them. It's at the very least really sloppy.