Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The OT' started by Richard King, Jul 1, 2005.
Yeah...right...Bush nominate a moderate judge...wishful thinking there.
I think I recall hearing the same thing about Reagan in his day. Who was it who appointed the judge that you "moderates" are so praising today?
I hope Bush does the same thing.
As I recall President Reagan surprised a lot of people with that appointment. And that no doubt is one explanation for the one sided nature (a unanimous confirmation vote) that she received
And, of course, Ike appointed both Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice William Brennan, who surprised him by supporting civil rights issues and the Bill of Rights.
Activist judges like Scalia, who authored the Crawford and Blakely opinions -- two of the most favorable decisions to criminal defendants in the court's 2003-2004 term? And who has consistently voted to overturn forty years of Supreme Court precedent on abortion?
You guys speak of moderates. Are you moderate? Will anyone that George Bush nominates find your approval? For Bush haters anyone he puts forth will be villified and be put through a wringer. A person that is truly moderate might find their leanings shifted once the Democrats in the Senate get through with them!
Although I am classified as a conservative, I don't understand this terminology in the court. Either someone upholds the constitution or they don't. Obviously when Al Gore spoke of a "living" document he took liberty to interpret as he saw fit, not according to what it says. Anyone with this philosophy does not deserve to sit on the bench at any level, much less The Supremes. No one should ever be nominated that would bring in "world standards" or "international law" when deciding the constitutionality of a US case. That is ridiculous and boils down to criminal neglect of their duty.
I think Bush has the right terminology, strict constructionist, but whether or not he actually can produce someone without a predetermined interpretation has yet to be seen.
I can't speak for anyone else. I consider myself a moderate but in the polarized world we have here I think that most , if not all, others see me as a liberal.
I think that several of the justices have done fine jobs. I would take issue with some judges appointed by each party. Right now the President has indicated that he will seek the advise of the Senate in this one. I hope he does that and I hope that all the senators take the responsibility of confirmations seriously but still give the nominee a fair chance.
We willsee what the Senate does. But I will bet dollars to donuts that we won't see many surprises in how people here view the nominee.
Wouldn't it be nice if everything in life was so black and white. In reality though, most things are more a murky gray and very few things black or white. Our founding fathers and past legislatures created a document that fit a very broad range of topics and was deliberately worded that way. They left up the interpertation of the Constution and our laws to the judicial branch to apply those documents to specific cases where things may not be black and white, right or wrong. Al Gore was correct when he said the Constution is a living document because it is. It hasn't stopped growing and is constantly being viewed in a slightly different light. However, Gore's interpretation of the document doesn't matter. The interpretations on 9 people wearing long black ropes do.
Actually, the history of the SCOTUS is not a "constuctionist" history. That is simply a propaganda word coined by neocons.
If, for example, Roe vs. Wade were to be overturned to the delight of the neocons, that would be just as "activist" and non-constructionist as any of the courts decisions.
The recent eminent domain decision, for example, is a victory for "states rights" over the individual. I would consider that a "constructionist" decision because it sided with the local/state gubbamint as to who gets to define the "public good".
Another constructionist decision was the SCOTUS ruling on the Florida recount of the 2000 election.
About the most constructionist actions the SCOTUS takes is to refuse to hear cases from the lower courts.
Just out of couriosity, which justices do you take issues with. I think many would find Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas as being the conservatives, Kennedy and O'Conner being the swing votes, and the rest liberal leaning. However, all but two, Ginsburg and Breyer, were nominated by Republicans.
My first reaction is that I would like to see President Bush refuse to nominate anyone for either O'Conner or Rehnquists seats and make the court smaller. The size of the court, however, is decided by Congress. (set at 9 in 1869) In his attempts to have the Federal Government become the entirely too big behmoth it has become, FDR tried to change the number of seats to 15 in 1937. (basically so he could have complete control over how the Court made its decisions)
Therefore, above the STATES RIGHTS issue of Roe v. Wade, I would like to see a Justice who will dispell this notion of judicial review of the Court. I would like to see Alexander Hamilton's vision of a Court that would be the weakest of the three branches, rather than the overseer of the three branches be brought to life.
I do not recognize this court and classified them as domestic enemies regardless of who appointed them. I will not play their game where the controllers (like a WWF McMahon) create a false paradigm where the GDP (general dumb-downed public) thinks there is a difference between the two and believe that they have any input or power whatsoever when they don’t. McMahon controls both sides face and heel and as long as you play their game they will eat you alive by stealing your freedom, land, wealth, and killing your children in unjust and illegal conflicts. The fact is no matter who you vote for you’ll have less freedom, screwed often by black robed clowns 5 to 4, and will get more NAFTA, GATT, higher fuel prices, and other family and middle class killing actions. I’ll never vote again when it comes down to two demons where you get the chance to pick the demon you like better which is what you’re doing when you vote for either A Democrat or Republican unless you think the WWF is real.
Wake up or Waco!
I didn't know Ed McMahon was involved with the Wrestling Federation, and I too sometimes wonder if Publishers Clearinghouse really runs the country.
Those wacky environmentalists at the World Wildlife Federation getting you down again?
BlACK hELIcOPtErS bLAcK hELiCoptErs BlacK HEliCOPtErS BlacK hELiCOPTerS BlacK HeLiCopTers blACK HelicOPTeRs blaCK HEliCOptErS BlaCK HelIcOPTErS Black HelIcOPTerS BlAcK HElicopTErs blACK hElicoPTErS bLaCK HelIcOPtErS BlaCk HEliCoPters black helIcOPTErS BLAck helIcopTERS BlACk HELICopTERS black HelICOPTeRS BLack HelicoPTeRS black HELIcoPTERs black HelICOPteRs blaCk heLIcOpteRS bLaCk HElIcopTeRS BLaCK HELiCOPTErS bLacK HelicOPtErS BlACk hElICoPtErS bLACk HELicopTerS BLaCk heLiCopterS blACK heLicOpters blAcK HeLICoPTErS BlacK HElICoPTeRS
Vince McMahon, Rich. He never said anything about "Ed" Your posts are becoming more difficult to understand as you get older. You and something called "gubbamint" ??? Is that a breath freshener? No?
So I do this google search on that word "gubbamint" and guess what turns up to explain it? YOU! Here on dbstalks, Google, the world's collection of all human knowledge and see how small that can be. Fascinating.
You must have hit the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button. That takes you right to the good stuff.
That's a good point. I have wondered myself why Congress (with or without presidential request) won't step in to curb the Judiciary's power. They could make the court larger or smaller. It wouldn't be for the first time. And I believe Congress has other constitutional authority to limit the power of the Supreme Court - including (if I remember correctly) the power to declare something outside their authority.
But a change is needed. And I'm sure the liberals will contest it heatedly. But the Supreme Court needs to quit rewriting laws and simply rule based on what the constitution says. If liberals want to rewrite the laws, amend the constitution. But stop drawing on flawed opinion to overrule the constitutional rights of the people to decide through the ballot box and their elected (accountable) representatives.
I would like to see Alexander Hamilton's vision of a Court that would be the weakest of the three branches
Funny, I thought the Constitution pretty much made them equal.
I would like to see a Justice who will dispell this notion of judicial review of the Court
Keep on dreaming, because its never going to happen.
The Constitution clearly says that cases involving the Laws of the US are under their power. The Constitution is the highest law, so its only logical that they have the power to judge lesser laws in violation.
The amazing thing is I recall you saying how bad the recent imminent domain decision was. If you thought that judicial review is a bad thing, then you should praise the decision. Saying the courts should have abided by the constitution rather than the law is in violation of judicial review isn't it?