[softengine]

Surprisingly, Intellectual Conservative hasn't been banned from FR yet - (diversity of thought seems to be dying here)...

Anyway, found this article of value since no candidate has made any real effort to address the issues raised here. IMHO, the courts, especially the Supreme Court will be pivotal in the future (or lack of) this country.

[weegee]

Supreme Court nominations seemed to play a bigger role in the 2000 election.

If the Republicans didn't have the difficulty with federal judge appointments, perhaps one would have already stepped down from the bench.

The left only discusses the Supreme Court nominations with regards to abortion.

President Bush has been asked at several of these debates if he has a "litmus test" for Supreme Court nominations (meaning will his nominee have to be pro-life).

President Bush has said that he wants judges who will interpret the constitutionality of law rather than making law.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court had a good example of "making law" when they arrived at a decision on same sex marriage, and cognizant enough that they COULD NOT do what they wanted, ordered the legislature to pass such a law.

[RAY]

Who nominates and selects Supreme Court judges is one of the single most important consideration for this upcoming election. Especially if we are to continue "allowing" judicial activism.

[ssaftler]

Reading the article (and others recently), Supreme Court nominees could be the major lasting legacy of the next four years. Consider this nightmare scenario if we wake up in 15 days to "President-elect John F. Kerry":

- Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Hillary Rodham Clinton

If that ain't enough to make you want to barf, then by all means vote for Jean-Francois and his ambulance-chasing lap dog.

[mrsmith]

“The living Constitutional judge never has to put up with that. Whatever [s]he thinks is good, is in the Constitution.”
John Scalia