Thomas v. Scalia in GONZALES v. RAICH et al.

Moreover, even buying into your argument, how do you get off criticizing the acts of others, because in your world there can be no definitive meaning of the constitution, because it is clearly vague in many respects--indeed, it was deliberately written to be vague--and no one is bound by the opinions of others in interpreting the constitution, because those opinions might be "wrong."

So where do you get the chutzpah to complain that other people are wrongly interpreting the constitution? What makes your interpretation "right," and why is it binding on others? Why is it binding on the Supreme Court? The States?

I am honestly dumbfounded at what I've read here the past two days. Good lord.

Well, as far as earning the "big bucks" go. When I took the bench my income dropped by half. I am back in private practice now...go figure.

I do agree that there are poor, sometimes even pathetic, judges just as there are slackers in every profession. Regrettably, many trial judges receive little additional Constitutional jurisprudential training after they start hearing cases (or leave law school for that matter).

As to whether a particular judge is "lacking in Constitutional principle" there is tremendous variability. Moral fortitude and judicial courage is likewise a very individualistic trait.

I clerked for a very conservative Constitutional law professor and believe I received solid training in Constitutional law. That training doubtlessly impacted the decisions I rendered and how I practice law. I am grateful for the time this man took with me to help me leave law school firmly grounded in not only current Constitutional law, but also the historical antecedents.

I would say that no one lawyer or judge knows "all" of the law. I would be utterly incompetent to rule in a tax law case for instance. On the other hand, in the cases I did decide I was never reversed on appeal. Admittedly, at least a substantial minority of judges would benefit from a review of the current case law on Constitutional issues.

Judges are rightly criticized and should be accountable for the bone headed rulings they sometimes make. But, trial judges have become little more than convenient scapegoats for the results of properly enforcing poorly crafted laws that were imposed on them (and everyone else) by the legislature, or bound to follow wrongly decided appellate decisions. It is simplistic in my view to only blame the judges for the outcomes of particular cases. Voters, law makers, lawyers, litigants who bring frivolous cases, and others in and out of government who need to own up to their responsibility as well.
I appreciate your opinion, but believe that the problem is more complex than rogue judges.

I find the majority judges in this case to be sorely lacking in Constitutional principle.
How say you?

I appreciate your opinion, but believe that the problem is more complex than rogue judges.

I agree, unprincipled judges are just part of unprincipled officials all over the USA. The oath of office is routinely ignored.

Thanks for your input.

Mr. Madison had more to say about the "general welfare."

"With respect to the two words ‘general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." -James Madison

And I already quoted him in Federalist 45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

Does not sound to me like he intended the sweeping powers which have been assumed by the feds...

Or, alternately, you could conclude that the job of a judge can be extremely difficult.

I would consider this option first before I raked anyone over the coals. Were the argument turned around, someone would have taken Thomas to task for using the term "nuanced" to describe his opionion.

Interesting -- I usually associate the fish symbol in your tagline with less thoughtful opinions.

strategofr, regarding our discussion on the other thread, please see the link that publius valerius provided at post 149 above.

The link goes to an online book by Raoul Berger titled GOVERNMENT BY JUDICIARY: THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.

It addresses the incorporation doctrine of the Bill of Rights, and other issues I'm researching. I am just beginning to read the book.

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.