Iraq-

I see the GOP mean machine is heating up defending the President in Iraq. They are feeling support erode among the citizenry and are of course, blaming the treasonous democrats. I guess a democratic hawk, Murtha, called for troop withdraw now and Reid pulled his stunt the other day calling for more investigations into pre-war intelligence.

But the GOP is mis-reading the public. I think this is still support for the war. The problem is, Bush will not make his plans clear and succinct. Saying we will stand with the Iraqis until they can stand on their own is too vague. What Americans want is a competent approach to the conflict and a plan.

We secretly fear that the war is being handled like Bush handled Katrina. We also fear that it might become another Vietnam if Bush continues to put his head in the sand. I recall Nixon saying one thing and doing another.

So this latest set of attacks on Democrats, accusing them again on being soft on terrorists because they are grumbling about Iraq will backfire. We all know that Iraq has some terrorists but mostly Sunni insurgents pissed that the US has helped the Shiites take over. Are you telling me that we can't leave Iraq until all the terrorists are killed? Doesn't wash.

Bush has been used to riding the wave of fear and anxiety caused by 911 and a country looking for leadership. But those days are gone.

What we want Mr. President is a plan for Iraq, a time table, a way for us to tell when the mission is complete. If that calls for troops withdraw next year, great. If we have to stay for two more years, then let us know.

Please, Mr. President, give us a plan.

Familyman Struggles to Understand the SCOTUS

This is a series in which familyman tries to understand the SCOTUS and Roe v. Wade.
Originalism?

Originalism is a method of understanding the Constitution by understanding the intent of the founding fathers.

Well, after a little research, I'm here to say that Originalism is hokum, or more precisely, deciding SCOTUS cases exclusively through originalism as Scalia and Thomas claim, is a fraud.

Originalism is, in the words of Robert Bork from an opinion piece in the Sunday, Oct 23 San Diego Union, " ...means that the judge must discern from the relevant materials – debates at the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers, newspaper accounts of the time, debates in the state ratifying conventions, and the like – the principles the ratifiers understood themselves to be enacting. The remainder of the task is to apply those principles to unforeseen circumstances, a task that law performs all the time."

Makes sense to me. Certainly the intention of the FFs when writing the Constitution is important, but being exclusively orignalist is like trying to drive a modern car with the skills from a Model A. Sure, some things apply, steering wheel and a gas pedal, but start the damned thing.

Originalism is a fraud for two reasons.

First, the intent of Originalism is to create a standard approach to interpretation in which to make judgments about the Constitution. This is done through understanding the times, contexts and subtexts of the debate that occurred while writing the original Constitution. But I would argue that the context and history of the Constitutional debate is as much in the eye of the interpreter as any other method of constitutional interpretation, which is the very thing Orginalists hate about other interpretive methods. And what's more, like a sheep in wolves clothing, Originalism pretends to be historical science.

The second fraud Originalism suffers is the same fraud of Orginalists interpretation of the Bible or the Ten Commandments, that rules written 200 years ago or 2000 years ago can be easily transferred to the extremely complex issues of the twenty-first century. This is simply a childish (I can see Scalia stomping his feet now) yearning for simpler times when interpreting right and wrong was much more black and white then it is today. Really, you burned people at the stake and blacks were slaves.
Originalism is certainly an important tool for a Justice to have in his/her tool belt, but if its the only, tool, the justice is limited in the job they can do...and maybe that is the idea.

Better for a Justice to be originalists, use stari decisis, and try to do what is good for people through the law.

But Familyman, that is soooo naive.