FAREWELL, SANDRA DAY (Alberto Gonzales to Supreme Court?)

michellemalkin.com ^ | July 1, 2005 | Michelle Malkin

[Ebony and Ivory]

I don't want someone that will interpret the law. I want someone that will read it. Interpretation of the law is making law.

[reelfoot]

Thank you, my oversight. They must support the RTK&BA.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

I mostly agree with your post. But I don't think I would put any of the big three issues (WOT, border control, judicial activism) above the other others. I tend to see each as a leg on a three-legged stool. They are all important. If any one of them is undercut by anti-national actions, the entire structure will crumble.

[Brilliant]

You're not understanding my point. I'm not talking about whether the S.Ct. is bound by its own decisions. I'm talking about whether a lower court judge, or a state court judge is bound by a Supreme Court decision. Clearly he is. If a lower court judge is dealing with an abortion case, he has no choice but to take Roe as a given. So if the judge applies Roe, does that mean he's pro-abortion?

No. He has no choice. He can't overrule the Supreme Court.

On the other hand, if you appoint him to the Supreme Court, then he's no longer bound by Roe, to the extent that he might vote to overrule it.

Given these realities, it is difficult to determine from decisions by a potential nominee how they will vote when they get on the Court.

You really have to know them personally, to understand what their philosophy is.

And Bush does know Gonzales personally, so I am guessing that if he appoints Gonzales, it's because he knows that Gonzales will represent the judicial philosophy that Bush says he wants.

[GrandEagle]

and the longer the incumbent remains in office, the bigger that "constituency" gets, and

I will agree, however that is a different problem. We need to stay informed and require our officials to do their job and defend our Constitution.

Not having term limits had produced some bad results - I agree. Having term limit ALWAYS produces bad results.
I do understand your position, but I fear a politician who is not accountable more than I fear one who has been in a long time.

-- virtual handshake --
I suppose we'll just disagree on this one.

Cordially,

GE

[Common Tator]

My experience is that people that don't have a liberal arts undergrad are pretty poor at arguing and don't know much about the liberal arts like history, law, ethics, etc. Would you want a Sean Hannity or a Judge Bork on the bench?

Judge Bork made a very stupid decision when he was on on the circuit court bench and charged with redistricting a state. He uses a formula that gave nearly every congressional district in an evenly divided state to the Democrats. Bork talks intellectual theory.. Hannity would have Gerrymandered the state for Republicans and boasted about it. Bork boasted about his formula for equality. He never tested the result. If his brainy intellectual eqo had checked his formula he would have discovered that he had made Democrats a lot more equal than Republicans.

You have made a typical intellectual mistake. You have come to believe your inner intestine is an ivory tower.

[coffeebreak]

---> Robert Bork is no conservative. Not no, but HELL NO to him or any "clone". Nominate REAL conservatives

You're wrong.

Robert Bork is one of a small group of "true" conservatives. He would be a good justice because he would be anti homosexual agenda.

[Melas]

Never happen in a million years.

[Common Tator]

When an organization is as vast as our federal government turnover at the top just insures that the permanent government employees run the show. What we get with term limits is government 99 percent run by bureaucrats.

As government has grown we have become a government of the bureaucrats, for the bureaucrats, and by the bureaucrats.

They run every service. Even back in the 1940's president Harry Truman described being president like being in charge of a 500 square mile sponge. He could hit it has hard as he could and nothing more than 3 feet away even felt it. When the boss is temporary it is hard to make the help do what the boss says.

Staffers in congress stay employed for their entire career. This term they will work for one member. If that member loses the will work for another member. If there is no congress person to work for, they go to work in a government agency. They are the ones that put words in our elected officials mouths. They run the show.

You can see it in people like Pelosi. Today staffer A tells her what to say. So she says A... Tomorrow staffer B is on duty so she says B. Pelosi does not even know that saying B contradicts A.

The more turnover in elected officials the more the bureaucrats can pull the wool over elected officials heads.

The fallacy is that our laws are written by and our government is run by elected officials. The truth is more and more our nation is run by unelected and unknown bureaucrats. By the time a congressperson is able to pull the wool off his eyes his term is up. We fire him at the polls and elect a new congress-critter. Then the bureaucrats get to fool the new sucker until we fire him.

We elect people and then blame them. We never figure out that they are not running the show. Most elected officials don't even know what show is playing. They have to ask a bureaucrat.

[GrandEagle]

Very well put.
Food for thought - thanks.

Cordially,
GE

[Wonder Warthog]

"Robert Bork is one of a small group of "true" conservatives. He would be a good justice because he would be anti homosexual agenda."

Go read up on Bork's interpretation of the Second Amendment and then try to tell me he is a "true conservative". The man is "just another RINO" type.

[wildbill]

Judge Brown has yet to serve a day on a federal case. I don't think she'd be considered at this time. Maybe for the second one.

[churchillbuff]

Judge Brown has yet to serve a day on a federal case""""

So? WHen Sandra O'Connor was nominated, she was a judge on the Arizona state court of appeals. She wasn't even on the state's Supreme Court, let alone on a federal court.