Do You Support Trenton's A.C. Takeover? 
DEBATE GAFFE: Dopey Daggett Couldn't Name ANY Supreme Court Justices!
Matt Rooney | October 17, 2009
The first rule of debating is "to do no harm." Particularly when it's an untelevised Friday night debate! That kind of format ensures almost zero instant penetration with the electorate... unless one of the candidates makes a notable misstep.
Daggett did last night.
From Wally Edge, who threw up a post today slamming Daggett's debating performance:
What a dope! How can you run for governor of an American state and NOT KNOW A SINGLE JUSTICE BY NAME?!
Daggett just officially disqualified himself as a credible candidate. However, since your Blogger-in-Chief's job is to educate and I certainly don't want this campaign experience to hold no educational value for Mr. Daggett, I've decided to post this link to the U.S. Supreme Court biographies page.
Study up, Chris!
The first rule of debating is "to do no harm." Particularly when it's an untelevised Friday night debate! That kind of format ensures almost zero instant penetration with the electorate... unless one of the candidates makes a notable misstep.
Daggett did last night.
From Wally Edge, who threw up a post today slamming Daggett's debating performance:
"... Two other things came out of discussions with major party strategists: they think the man who hired fat and bald actors has no standing to criticize negative campaigns, and they are convinced that Daggett was unable to name a single Justice of the United States Supreme Court, even though panelists gave him several chances."
What a dope! How can you run for governor of an American state and NOT KNOW A SINGLE JUSTICE BY NAME?!
Daggett just officially disqualified himself as a credible candidate. However, since your Blogger-in-Chief's job is to educate and I certainly don't want this campaign experience to hold no educational value for Mr. Daggett, I've decided to post this link to the U.S. Supreme Court biographies page.
Study up, Chris!
"they are convinced that Daggett was unable to name a single Justice of the United States Supreme Court"
This is beyond mischaracterization. They did not ask Daggett to "name a Supreme Court Justice" they asked him to name one whose juridical outlook typifies someone he would appoint to the NJ bench. For an independent or anyone with a decent respect for the law that means nobody on the Court as currently constituted.
The other two candidates were both disingenuous and wrong at the same time. Corzine mentioned Breyer as he allegedly has a great respect for precedent. But NOTHING could be further from the truth. Breyer is a liberal and a Constitutional perfectionist, the theorists with the LEAST amount of respect for precedent. If precedent was important to Corzine he should have mentioned Roberts but since he is a Republican and Corzine was giving a superficial response anyway that would have been impossible.
Christie said he liked Alito because empathy and remembering one's roots was important to him. Again this was wrong on its face. Alito is probably the justice who displayed the least amount of empathy with respect to poor or underprivileged defendants including children. In fact he too greatly favors power. But beyond that, responsible jurists are not supposed to rule differently depending on the identity of the defendant only on the merits of the case or in Constitutional law, the strength and soundness of the arguments. If Christie were honest that's what he would he would have said. It was wrong when Sotomayor said her heritage would be a factor and it was wrong when Alito said same. If a judge feels the poor are undeserved by the law they should "run for the legislature" as Christie said.
For Daggett whose candidacy is based upon a distaste of the stranglehold the two-parties have on government, asking him to name a Justice appointed by a Republican or Democrat was less fair than asking him to choose between New Jersey's farms or its shores. Matt Rooney should think for a moment before he regurgitates what he spent 2 minutes reading.
Reply to this
"they are convinced that Daggett was unable to name a single Justice of the United States Supreme Court"
This is beyond mischaracterization. They did not ask Daggett to "name a Supreme Court Justice" they asked him to name one whose juridical outlook typifies someone he would appoint to the NJ bench. For an independent or anyone with a decent respect for the law that means nobody on the Court as currently constituted.
The other two candidates were both disingenuous and wrong at the same time. Corzine mentioned Breyer as he allegedly has a great respect for precedent. But NOTHING could be further from the truth. Breyer is a liberal and a Constitutional perfectionist, the theorists with the LEAST amount of respect for precedent. If precedent was important to Corzine he should have mentioned Roberts but since he is a Republican and Corzine was giving a superficial response anyway that would have been impossible.
Christie said he liked Alito because empathy and remembering one's roots was important to him. Again this was wrong on its face. Alito is probably the justice who displayed the least amount of empathy with respect to poor or underprivileged defendants including children. In fact he too greatly favors power. But beyond that, responsible jurists are not supposed to rule differently depending on the identity of the defendant only on the merits of the case or in Constitutional law, the strength and soundness of the arguments. If Christie were honest that's what he would he would have said. It was wrong when Sotomayor said her heritage would be a factor and it was wrong when Alito said same. If a judge feels the poor are undeserved by the law they should "run for the legislature" as Christie said.
For Daggett whose candidacy is based upon a distaste of the stranglehold the two-parties have on government, asking him to name a Justice appointed by a Republican or Democrat was less fair than asking him to choose between New Jersey's farms or its shores. Matt Rooney should think for a moment before he regurgitates the statements made by worried partisan strategists that he spent 2 minutes reading.
Reply to this
The Daggett spin jockeys are working overtime on a Sunday!
He was given SEVERAL opportunities, and on every occasion Daggett was unable to name a single justice. He's a bureaucrat hack who wants to raise our taxes, run our lives but can't handle a basic civics question?
Thanks but no thanks.
DAGGETT = CORZINE
Reply to this
He had several chances to name a SC Justice WHOSE JURISPRUDENCE IMPRESSES HIM! Believe it or not the membership of the Supreme Court remained unchanged throughout the entire two minutes he was asked that question.
I can name all 9 plus many past configurations of the court and I wouldn't pick any justice in recent memory.
Corzine and Christie made statements that either A. demonstrates their complete ignorance of the court and its judges or B. was intentionally dishonest.
The most newsworthy justices in recent years are Sotomayor (a lightweight with no SC experience), (Roberts and Alito two conservative Bush appointees) or the ultra-conservatives (Thomas and Scalia).
Of the remaining less famous judges you have the far-lefties who've had little to no impact (Ginsburg and Breyer), J.P. Stevens who has grown steadily leftward and finally Kennedy who has exhibited no judicial consistency.
Not ONE of them is worthy of cloning on the NJ Bench.
He was given a false set of choices just as the Reps/Dems are a false set of choices for governor. It would have made more sense to ask him "Who would you pick, Corzine or Christie for governor?"
Reply to this
The Daggett Devotees who post on this blog take absurdity to an entire new level.
The U.S. Supreme Court is ideologically diverse and home to some great thinkers. He couldn't pick one?!
Or, more likely, Chris Daggett just doesn't know what the hell he's talking about! He's a career bureaucrat for God's sake. He excels at one task only: shuffling paper. ANY of the Supreme Court justices could out-think Daggett with both robe sleeves tied behind his or her back!
Reply to this
Wrong again Matt. There is hardly any ideological diversity on the court. They are either perfectionists or phony originalists or Kennedy who cares only for the power of the "middle." Daggett would likely prefer minimalists or econometricians, and there are none currently on the court nor are there any majoritarians, or other schools of judicial thought.
Corzine and Alito just named whatever Justice they could with nary a thought about what methods or rulings were important to them that's why they made such ignorant statements about those judges. Your claim that there is ideological diversity on the court merely because there are two camps and a power monger displays a similar ignorance.
But let me ask you this from what you know of Daggett (pro-choice, anti-public option, former Republican with a strong concern environmental regulations etc. etc.) who do think he should have chosen?
Reply to this