Ed Schultz leaves no doubt as to what sort of legal mind President Obama should select to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court.
This is no time for bipartisanship. We need a liberal on the Supreme Court.
My first thought was, "When is the time for bipartisanship?" We haven't seen bipartisanship from the Democrat-run Congress, nor from President Barack "I Won" Obama. Their idea of bipartisanship is three Republicans.
But more importantly, Ed Schultz makes clear that being a judge isn't about rule of law, jurisprudence, or any of that mumbo jumbo we learn in law school. It's about coming up with results liberals agree with.
You put a brilliant legal mind with a strong liberal convictions (sic)in there and it could change some minds. Someone who will fight for the little guy against big corporations. Someone who will fight for fairness, not just for people in power. Someone who can go toe to toe with the conservative Chief Justice.
This isn't about legal interpretation. It's about results, which, quite honestly, is what liberals think the court is about. That's why they don't like what words say; they like what they want them to mean. So, if the Constitution says nothing about privacy, it's permissible to discover a privacy right 200 years after its writing.
I have no hope that Obama will nominate a candidate who isn't from the "making shit up" school of law. But at least Ed Schultz is honest enough to admit he's not really interested in applying law.
|