Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

At the U.S. Supreme Court the “Euro Street” Counts, and American Voters Don’t Count
Harkonnendog ^ | 3/01/05 | Harkonnendog

Posted on 03/01/2005 1:42:01 PM PST by Harkonnendog

All of which means the Republicans should, indeed MUST use the nuclear option to break the democratic filibuster that stops judges from being voted upon in the Senate. Screw it. Go for it. But, hat tip to Powerline again- this New Yorker article says they won’t.

(Excerpt) Read more at harkonnendog.blogspot.com ...


TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: constitution; deathpenalty; supremecourt; wtfover

1 posted on 03/01/2005 1:42:03 PM PST by Harkonnendog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Harkonnendog
At the U.S. Supreme Court the “Euro Street” Counts, and American Voters Don’t Count

Neither one of those should count for squat at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Only the Constitution.

2 posted on 03/01/2005 1:47:58 PM PST by newgeezer (Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Harkonnendog
If I were "W", I'd stop looking for strict constructionists, and start looking for conservative activists for the court. A strict constructionist may well feel constrained to follow precedent, e.g ROE v. WADE because a prior Court decided it. Even liberals know ROE and GRISWOLD are horsepizzle cut from whole cloth, if not gossamer by Blackmun and William "Zero" Douglas. You need judges to get rid of that tripe- then you can go to strict constructionists. Better still, have Congress limit what the court's powers are. Marshall created them-gossamer again. Time to rein 'em in.
3 posted on 03/01/2005 2:05:10 PM PST by PzLdr (Liberals are like slugs-they leave a trail of slime wherever they go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PzLdr

that's an excellent point. I never considered that extra Constituional decision might be upheld because a constructionist would feel compelled by his own philosophy.
that's a scary thought.


4 posted on 03/01/2005 2:52:17 PM PST by Harkonnendog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Harkonnendog

Reading the federalist papers 80 - 83, the common folks worried the judiciary could become too powerful vis-à-vis its independence and lifetime appointments. Hamilton acknowledged the independence shortfall by noting the English model of the judiciary under the legislative branch was not acceptable in a constitutional model.

His argument for the lifetime appointments and the abuse of power by the Judiciary was twofold. First, congress would exercise its right to impeach judges. Second, the Judiciary did not have the ability to enforce its decisions so the legislative branch or executive branches could just ignore the decisions.

Funny how congress in which its members admit not reading bills before they vote on them also can’t follow the constitution and control the courts.


5 posted on 03/02/2005 9:26:56 AM PST by 11th Commandment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson