A Princess and a Toad and Judge Roberts

Interesting BBC Article on Judge Roberts. Annoyingly I agree with Judge Roberts decision on the toad logically but not practically. The short of it is Congress is “abusing” the interstate trade law to do things like enact laws protecting endangered toads that live only in California (making them very non-interstate). Logically, Roberts opinion that this was an abuse by Congress is spot on. On a practical note he probably should have sided with the toad – placing prevention of extinction above logical interpretation of the law.

I believe this is the only value judges have – to be opinionated. Bush calls judges who think for themselves “activist judges”. Wouldn’t a system void of thinking judges be better run by a computer then? And, do we really want a legal code that has zero leeway? If the legal code has leeway (which it does) then aren’t “activist judges” required? How else could they decide?

On states rights again, I’m split. I like the idea of states rights except, there are many states that are just farm animal backwards (most of the south). Also – I guess I sort of believe that America should be a country – not something closer to the European Union. It’s annoying that buying a boat from Oregon requires massive hoop jumping to use in Washington – this is the result of states rights. Of course – where states rights really matter is when the interest of the nation out weighs the interest of the state. What’s good for the state (drilling in Alaska) might not be good for the country. What less enlightened states do (you can only imagine what the south would be like without federal law) needs checks (human rights in the south [blacks and women] in the 60’s is a good example of this).

Not surprisingly I’m pro-states rights when there are right wing nuts in Washington and against them when someone more moderate (Clinton) is in office. If they over turned Roe vs Wade I’d be very, very pro-states rights.

Anyway… good article on the BBC.