<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The next step in judicial conservatism&#8230;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://donklephant.com/2006/06/01/the-next-step-in-judicial-conservatism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://donklephant.com/2006/06/01/the-next-step-in-judicial-conservatism/</link>
	<description>Big Teeth. Huge Ass. Surprisingly Reasonable.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:56:55 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: cartographer</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2006/06/01/the-next-step-in-judicial-conservatism/comment-page-1/#comment-32851</link>
		<dc:creator>cartographer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jun 2006 00:13:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/2006/06/01/the-next-step-in-judicial-conservatism/#comment-32851</guid>
		<description>So here&#039;s the scenario: the Alabama court makes a decision disregarding U.S. Supreme Court precedent; the U.S. Supreme Court summarily reverses that decision, on grounds of selfsame precedent. Now what? Ignoring precedent of a higher court is one thing, defying its orders is something else. Does anyone  think these Alabama jokers would have the courage to do that? At the crunch they would back down, they know it, and therefore they will never press it to that point. They won&#039;t in fact disregard U.S. Supreme Court rulings, no matter what they tell the voters. This is phony defiance, like George Wallace standing for ten seconds in the schoolhouse door. It&#039;s an Alabama tradition!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So here&#8217;s the scenario: the Alabama court makes a decision disregarding U.S. Supreme Court precedent; the U.S. Supreme Court summarily reverses that decision, on grounds of selfsame precedent. Now what? Ignoring precedent of a higher court is one thing, defying its orders is something else. Does anyone  think these Alabama jokers would have the courage to do that? At the crunch they would back down, they know it, and therefore they will never press it to that point. They won&#8217;t in fact disregard U.S. Supreme Court rulings, no matter what they tell the voters. This is phony defiance, like George Wallace standing for ten seconds in the schoolhouse door. It&#8217;s an Alabama tradition!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sean Aqui</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2006/06/01/the-next-step-in-judicial-conservatism/comment-page-1/#comment-31130</link>
		<dc:creator>Sean Aqui</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jun 2006 15:52:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/2006/06/01/the-next-step-in-judicial-conservatism/#comment-31130</guid>
		<description>Agreed: clearly there are Supreme Court rulings that are badly founded -- though we&#039;ll all disagree on which ones they are. But, good or bad, they&#039;re the law until the Supreme Court itself overturns them. Otherwise we risk legal anarchy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Agreed: clearly there are Supreme Court rulings that are badly founded &#8212; though we&#8217;ll all disagree on which ones they are. But, good or bad, they&#8217;re the law until the Supreme Court itself overturns them. Otherwise we risk legal anarchy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pooh</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2006/06/01/the-next-step-in-judicial-conservatism/comment-page-1/#comment-30883</link>
		<dc:creator>Pooh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jun 2006 06:40:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/2006/06/01/the-next-step-in-judicial-conservatism/#comment-30883</guid>
		<description>Brian, I&#039;ll point out that it&#039;s easy to support the rule of law when the rulings favor your policy preferences - so I commend you for recognizing the legitimacy of rulings which you find disagreeable.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Brian, I&#8217;ll point out that it&#8217;s easy to support the rule of law when the rulings favor your policy preferences &#8211; so I commend you for recognizing the legitimacy of rulings which you find disagreeable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian in MA</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2006/06/01/the-next-step-in-judicial-conservatism/comment-page-1/#comment-30809</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian in MA</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jun 2006 04:20:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/2006/06/01/the-next-step-in-judicial-conservatism/#comment-30809</guid>
		<description>Well, this is lunacy.

But it does not approach the lunacy of the 9th circuit court (the people who brought you Newdow&#039;s attempted pledge banning, and the one that said parents have no right to decide what their children are exposed to in public schools.), the most overturned court in the history of the US court system.

Are some supreme court rulings ridiculous? Yes. I&#039;m thinking of one in particular that is still justified by a 1973 understanding of medicine and a 7th century understanding of inalienable rights. However, for the sake of consistency in the court system, the states have to obey federal rulings where applicable.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, this is lunacy.</p>
<p>But it does not approach the lunacy of the 9th circuit court (the people who brought you Newdow&#8217;s attempted pledge banning, and the one that said parents have no right to decide what their children are exposed to in public schools.), the most overturned court in the history of the US court system.</p>
<p>Are some supreme court rulings ridiculous? Yes. I&#8217;m thinking of one in particular that is still justified by a 1973 understanding of medicine and a 7th century understanding of inalienable rights. However, for the sake of consistency in the court system, the states have to obey federal rulings where applicable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: amba</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2006/06/01/the-next-step-in-judicial-conservatism/comment-page-1/#comment-30739</link>
		<dc:creator>amba</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jun 2006 01:48:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/2006/06/01/the-next-step-in-judicial-conservatism/#comment-30739</guid>
		<description>Maybe Alabama will secede.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maybe Alabama will secede.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sean Aqui</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2006/06/01/the-next-step-in-judicial-conservatism/comment-page-1/#comment-30699</link>
		<dc:creator>Sean Aqui</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jun 2006 22:13:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/2006/06/01/the-next-step-in-judicial-conservatism/#comment-30699</guid>
		<description>I almost hope he gets elected just so we can all enjoy the spectacle. It&#039;d be the first time in decades that federal troops were called in to enforce Supreme Court rulings.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I almost hope he gets elected just so we can all enjoy the spectacle. It&#8217;d be the first time in decades that federal troops were called in to enforce Supreme Court rulings.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob J Young</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2006/06/01/the-next-step-in-judicial-conservatism/comment-page-1/#comment-30690</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob J Young</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jun 2006 20:57:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/2006/06/01/the-next-step-in-judicial-conservatism/#comment-30690</guid>
		<description>He&#039;s not just saying that just because he believes it.  He is saying it because the majority of people in the state believe it.  In Alabama, evangelism overrides the constitution and the &quot;civil war&quot; is call &quot;the war of northern aggression&quot;.  Boy do I hate living here.  On the other hand taxes are really low.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>He&#8217;s not just saying that just because he believes it.  He is saying it because the majority of people in the state believe it.  In Alabama, evangelism overrides the constitution and the &#8220;civil war&#8221; is call &#8220;the war of northern aggression&#8221;.  Boy do I hate living here.  On the other hand taxes are really low.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
