Posted on 07/01/2005 12:02:10 PM PDT by alessandrofiaschi
It would depend on the case. The conservative stand is not always the correct one. Sometimes when a judge decides against the "conservative" position, it tends to be because he/she doesn't think it's a federal issue. I am comfortable with a judge who will be as much against conservative judicial activism as one who is against liberal judicial activism. As long as he interprets the Constitution as written and originally intended, I'm satisfied.
That could also mean that it's Gonzales (who I would personally oppose - of all the supposed candidates he's the least appealing) and that the White House is tapping Cornyn as his "sponsor" to shepherd him through the technicalities of the confirmation process.
It's a matter of semantics, I think. In the article, it says that his votes often fall on "the conservative side". My reading of that (which was perhaps incorrect) was that Roberts often decides in favor of Original Intent and in accordance with how the Constitution is actually written. This is what I would consider a conservative approach. Perhaps not the same as a Conservative approach.
I want a judge who cares about Original Intent and who does not legislate from the bench in an activist manner. I currently do not know if Roberts fits that description. Al I know is that I do not want a judge who "often" fits that description. I want a judge who is 100% in favor of Original Intent.
He's off most lists because of his age. The WH wants someone under 60.
And that is why Democrats/liberals/progressives/socialists or whatever label they are using for themselves this week view originalists with such fear. They realize that, should a majority of the Court be composed of such originalists, they've lost all chance of attaining their agenda (since their agenda rarely generates sufficient public support to pass legislatively.....although it seems to be doing so more frequently - just look at the expansion of the Medicare entitlement and of the No Child Left Behind act!)
Yes, it depends completely on what the author was referring to. I think, though that he may have been referring to the outcome of the case in a political sense rather than the process/rationale used to justify the decision. I was rather concerned that Judge Roberts was indeed another Souter in waiting. Reading this article put my mind at ease, a bit. I was also quite surprised to read People for the American Way actually identified as liberal group for once instead of as non-partisan as you usually see in the MSM.
Well, lets see what sorts of things THE AUTHOR OF THE CONSTITUTION might find unconstitutional:
If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.
-James Madison
(NCLB is uncosntitional, these pork barrel transportation bills are unconstitional, the department of transportation is unconstitional, the department of energy is unconstitional, the department of educaiton is unconstitional, and on and on and on and ona ndn on and on and on and on)
And bush is proposing to fund churches in his 'faith based' initiatives. It is just all so horrific.
Cornyn could also indicate Garza or Owens. Cornyn knows them both since both are from Texas. I also believe that Cornyn worked with Garza.
He wants a "Strict Constitutionalist"! That's it! Not liberal, not conservative, just a strict constitutionalist!
He doesn't want any activist judges at all!
My definition of a socialist law would not include your example (although you are right that it is a stupid law). To me, a socialist law is one that takes rights or property from one group of individuals to give to another with no separate public policy justification. Such laws are unconstitutional under an originalist interpretation of the constitution.
Stop.
Your using logic and common sense.
This is the courts we are talking about.
Isn't there some kind of rule that bars using normal logical rational common sense?
I'm sorry, I just really hate these folks and resent the fact that they ignore the legislature.
If I sound bitter about judges, I do apologise.
I'm sorry, but I really do hate judges and have no faith in them whatsoever.
I share your feelings. However, my point was that you shouldn't focus your anger on judges ignoring the legislature, but rather ignoring the Constitution. Most of the laws written by the legislature are unconstitutional under an originalist interpretation. For example, a case striking down a gun control law on 2nd Amendment grounds would be ignoring the legislature, but is clearly just.
The legislature oversteps their authority as much as judges. The trick is to get judges in power like Clarence Thomas that will use the Constitution as their guide in striking down laws, rather than their own political whims. We also need to get more conservatives in acedemia. It is the law professors who are brainwashing the young lawyers that the :living breathing Constitution" is a legal reality.
Same here I don't want an activist judge even a conservative one. If the constitution for arguments sake said women have the right to all abortions.. then I would expect the judge to uphold that right. It is the job then of the congress and states to change the constitution.
Good point young conservatives seem drawn to other areas then law, like business. Part of it might be that you have to get some other degree, before you can go into law. And that other degree almost always seems to be some sort of social science type.
So they are getting a double brainwashing, first the left wing revisionist view of history or whichever social science, then more years of 'social justice' law professors.
Young, smart and conservative. Sounds like a winner to me.
Not Edith Jones or Brown, but Roberts looks pretty good to me. Bush kept faith with his supporters, IMO.
I tend to agree. I'd like to see what Ann Coulter thinks as well.
I remember reading that Bush 41 was hoodwinked by what's his name, the Senator from NH who went on to found that "centrist" organization. He and Biden laughed over lying to Bush Sr.
Do you oppose this?
Do you oppose this?
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.