Posted on 07/03/2005 2:37:02 PM PDT by Torie
Ping. Garza is on the wrong list, for the right reasons.
Good info on prospective judges--thanks!
Free the Constitution in Exile!
All this makes me like Brown or Garza even more.
I'm loving Janice Rogers Brown the more I read of her.
Me, too:
"On the brighter side, like other libertarians, she has vigorously enforced some Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches."
That's been one of my major concerns about any of Bush's nominees. I'm glad she's not what I feared. She should definitely be nominated.
The focus is on the commerce clause in this article. I don't favor rolling back the commerce clause either. That is one judicial "mistake" if it was, that should not be undone. The nation could not effectively function with a narrow reading.
You better believe that both of them would be good---
Now, I think that since O'Connor was a woman, and since JRB was just confirmed, President Bush should go with her...
BUT, don't forget, Biden said that just because they confirmed JRB, for the DC Court of Appeals, that doesn't mean she would be a good SCOTUS...BECAUSE, after all, the two courts are very different because,
THE SUPREME COURT MAKES LAW....????????? lololololol
ON Garza, he says ... "In 1997, his court's majority struck down a Louisiana law that allowed judges to deny abortion to a minor (and to notify her parents), even if she was mature and the abortion was in her best interest. Garza concurred in the opinion, but he added an injudicious and unnecessary polemic criticizing the Supreme Court's entire privacy jurisprudence."
HA! In other words, he spoke too much truth on the matter.
I like him!
"The focus is on the commerce clause in this article. I don't favor rolling back the commerce clause either. That is one judicial "mistake" if it was, that should not be undone. The nation could not effectively function with a narrow reading."
Ahem ... the *nation* could function okay, it's our Federal Government that would be the one having fits.
Sure it could. Besides, if it really would be that horrible to be without the commerce-clause-as-invented-by-activist-judges, we could always get a constitutional amendment - and this time hedge it in with proper restrictions, instead of Anything Goes.
But in the final analysis, I don't see why we need it.
Excellent points my friend.
Putting aside the intrastate toad and bug for the time being, the cross state impact of what states due in our mobile intertweined, regulated and subsidized society is inescapable. What the states should be, in a more perfect union, are mere administrative regions.
Who says the 'Rats are totally useless?
: )
The cross-national impact of what countries do with their internal policies isn't exactly insignificant either. Does that mean you're advocating global government?
Either way, just push for an amendment if this is what you want. But it makes no sense for this author to call judges "activist" for applying the law as written.
They are all in a narrow age range. Looks like they are going for bright and dependable rather than brilliance and genius.
Ya, activist is a short hand term here for one who wants to roll back the reach of the commerce clause. That is why I liked the article. I, as you notice, swing "left" on this one. One thing you think about when evaluating reversing an errant decision (again assumning that is what the FDR did for the sake of argument), and not following stare decisis, is the practical effect of doing so, how much society has come to rely on the precedent, and how accepted it is in the society at large. In this case, the eggs are scrambled, and unscrambling them would be at once highly disruptive and unwise.
Even the flaming liberals mostly admit that finding a "right to abortion" or "right to privacy" in the "penumbra" of the first amendment was nothing but sleight of hand. THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ABORTION. And the Constitution does not mention privacy, though no doubt the laws on freedom of speech, search and seizure, and so on help us to maintain our privacy--usually referred to, however, as freedom or property rights. Pretending to find such a right, but actually making it up out of thin air, took SCOTUS far down the road of judicial tyranny. Garza is hardly an extremist for pointing this out.
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.