Posted on 07/04/2005 5:41:28 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Char :)
That's one change in American politics in the last 100 years. Used to be that the citizens didn't think much beyond the street they lived on.
Did you read the article and these sentences: "I'm confident that the President will nominate someone with integrity and wisdom who understands that the proper role of a Supreme Court justice is to interpret the text of the Constitution, rather than, as Justice Thomas put it, promote 'the faddish slogans of the cognoscenti.'" or this "We are not looking for a liberal or a conservative jurist to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. We are looking for a strict constructionist," said Project 21 member Mychal Massie. "We are looking for someone who can uphold the Constitution, not rewrite it."
That doesn't sound very liberal to me -- in fact this whole group doesn't sound very liberal. Can you point out what I am missing in the article -- read it twice and don't understand your comments.
Thank you! I thought the same thing when I saw the headline and then I read the article several times to make sure it was what I thought it was and even then I thought I was missing something. Guess I was shocked to see their comments after all the comments by JJ and his ilk.
The U.S.A.,learn to correctly read posts on Free Republic or leave it.
project 21 bump
The headline gives you the group's position even without reading the article. A constructionist is one who believes that the constitution only means what it said when the framers wrote it. They don't view it as a living document that changes over time and with fads and styles.
You do know that Michael H. King (mhking) is on the advisory board of Project 21, don't you?
Project 21 bump! Black people need RKBA and private property rights (among others) even more than more economically-privileged groups.
well...
ahem...
Be it known that "I" have NEVER posted a response without reading the article first in all my years!!!
I knew the meaning of the word constructionists -- I thought I might be wrong because I didn't know about Project 21 -- if I knew Michael was a member I would have had no doubt.
The problem is all the liberal black/hispanic groups we keep hearing from and my first reaction was this is too good to be true. Then I saw the Freeper comments and thought I must have missed something.
ACLU, NAACP, LULAC and the list goes on of groups that I see articles from and the article doesn't match the headlines.
In this case, the head line and the article match perfectly and am really glad to read about this Project 21 group.
Your comments made me burst out laughing! Happy 4th of July!
Presently, only three justices meet the common-sense criteria demanded by Project 21. It's incredible that it even needs to be stated that Supreme Court justices should rule based on the Constitution's language and it's authors' original intent rather than on the chic political correctness of the day, as if the Constitution did not contain its own means for amendment.
But here we are - - the Supreme Court is top-heavy with pompous, liberal, activist scumbags and Bush has a chance to replace at least one of them with a new justice who has respect for American tradition and its founding principles.
Dubya better come through.
Another BIG BUMP for the amazing Project 21.
bttt
I have to agree with the criteria - a strict constructionist in the vein of Thomas or Scalia, certainly one who does not feel the urge to "legislate" from the bench - is who the President should choose.
Black conservative ping
If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)
Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.