Well, I was reading through some of the suggestions......I won't name names because most of them don't have a chance.
I want somebody who will support the Constitution as written, not make new law, and certainly not take Internatiional law into consideration.
And I, like you, can't imagine Bush nominating anybody that I couldn't agree with; he's smarter than we are.
My expectation is that he'll appoint somebody who will subordinate the Constitution to WTO rules and regulations.
And I, like you, can't imagine Bush nominating anybody that I couldn't agree with; he's smarter than we are.
Yeah... well... I hope your use of "we" doesn't include all of us.
Bush always has said that he wanted judges like Scalia and Thomas, I'll take him at his word.
"I want somebody who will support the Constitution as written, not make new law, and certainly not take Internatiional law into consideration."
Exactly what I want. Unfortunately, the public, including most here, have bought into the shorthand of "liberal" and "conservative" judges, and both sides accuse the other of "legislating from the bench" so that these phrases have lost all meaning.
The question should be, do you want a constructionist, one who implements the will of the Legislature, unless that will is clearly unconstitutional, or a judge who feels that his or her policy preference is superior to that of the Legislature? It's a difference of judicial philosophy, one that "liberal" and "conservative" doesn't quite capture.
On this board we scream about "judicial activists" but you'll see that the main reason people scream about Gonzalez is that he did not act like an activist in a Texas parental notification case. They wanted him to override the Legislature with no Constitutional basis to do so.
You want an originalist. So do I.