Posted on 07/06/2005 9:01:05 PM PDT by guitarist
The hypocrisy of the far left and the far right knows no bounds.
If O'Connor, Ginsberg and Rehnquist are replaced with originalists, it will die a quick death and be overturned as many cases are. The court will find its solace when the "sky is falling" left realizes that repealing Roe won't have much effect on a woman's ability to have an abortion in most states.
The "thousand cuts" approach will be germaine to the subsequent approach to ban abortion in the states. Most will only limit it. Utah may be the only state to ban it entirely. Some state supreme courts may even find a right to abortion in state consitutions.
Rino alert? What do you mean it MAY be the right thing to do? Sheesh.
Symbolism over substance, 'eh?
So you want your very own activist court. How are you any different than Ted Kennedy?
Mr. Gonzapes is anti-Second Ammendment.
I'm going to predict, right here and right now, that if Gonzales is nominated, the Republicans will LOSE the Senate majority in 2006. And lose seats in the house.
Why bother voting if a Republican vote means we're still going to get another gun grabbing "my word is law" judicial activist?
That won't be hard, as soon as an apparent pro-life majority takes hold of the Court, a test case won't be hard to find.
However, if the argument is that abortion is murder and should be banned in all states then it would take an "activist conservative" court to overturn R v W. It may be the right thing to do BUT it would still be judicial activism.
I apologize in advance if I am putting words into your mouth, but it seems that you are implying that it is "activist" for the Court to overturn a legislative enactment. True "activism" is ignoring the original meaning of the Consitution, regardless of whether a law is upheld or overturned. In fact, if you read the opinions from this term, Clarence Thomas voted to overturn laws more than any justice on the Court.
"The hypocrisy of the far left and the far right knows no bounds."
For Pete's sake! Get your head out! The motivational factors for liberals and conservatives are as different as night and day. To equate both ends of the political spectrum and the means to advance them as equal is so superficial. Would think an engineer could think deeper than that.
You seem to really like this Texas judge. Not everything from TX is great.
I meant to copy you on the last post too to get your comments on the second part of my post.
I sometimes get the feeling that Gonzales is a "stealth" candidate - - the GOP answer to the Democrats' Souter con job. Of course, the days of scumbags like Rudman being taken seriously are long gone thanks to the dying off of the socialist "mainstream" newsrooms and the continuing takeover of the selection and dissemination of the news by the "new" media.
Don't worry, Everyone knew there was gonna be a vacancy on the Court before Gonzales was nominated to be the AG, If GWB nominates Gonzales, it will be his third Nomination that replaces Ginsburg in 2007
Bump. Thanks for this acct.
I think Gonzales is very weak on Private Property Rights and lacks an understanding of orignainl intent of the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause (Eminent Domain) based both upon some cases when he ws at the texas Supreme Ct. (e.g., FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2000))
and, more recently and significantly, upon his NOT having joined in the Kelo case on the side of property owner. My understanding ws that he had sided with the League of Cities against Kelo while WH Counsel.
As you observe, he ceratinly believes in a Living Consitution and is NOT a strict constructionsist or an Originalist, but rather tends towrd the activist side per National Review Online and others.
No I said that if the court ruled against R v W on the basis of the 10th amendment then that is a constitutionally sound rejection. However, if the court over ruled the 10th amendment protections of the states as they did in the original R v W then they would be using the same activism of the liberal courts in reverse.
Saying something like this should be grounds for immediate removal from any public office, followed by a speedy prosecution.
L
Liberals understand that if they place all their eggs on who sits on the bench, they know they can bypass elections. Nothing they have to offer will ever survive the voting booth, so Tyrants like Kennedy and Schumer will fight to the death over who is on the Bench
Tell me, what else was the USSC created for if not to be the final arbiter of the constitution. Why did the founders create the 3rd branch of government for if it has no function?
Sadly, some people here don't understand the meaning of those words. Neither are they knowledgeable of what the SCTOUS actually does. They want a genie, who when they rub that magic lamp, will grant them what they think they want...IMMEDIATELY. That is also what they want from a president, whom they imagine can act like a dictator or king.
Reality and facts are an anathema to them.
And for all of the wailing, gnashing of teeth, and caviling around here, the one thing some people just don't get, is that GONZALES HASN'T BEEN NOMINATED TO REPLACE O'CONNOR AND HE WAS NEVER ON THAT SHORT LIST TO BEGIN WITH!
Your prediction is funny; really too funny for words and dead wrong to boot. But then, it's based on smoke and mirrors and red herrings.
No they understand it but they want one thing and one thing only, THEIR OWN ACTIVIST COURT". I don't want a judge nominated because of his/her stance on one issue. That person may be ready and willing to overturn R v W but what about the hundreds of other issues he/she may decide?
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.