To: Oliver Optic
That means nothing as, her position as an appeals court judge requires her to rule IAW established supreme court precident, even when such rulings are crap. AS a robed master, she can rule based on the Constitution if she desires.
More important would be her view on Stare Decisis. Does she view bad precident as outranking clear intent?
45 posted on
07/19/2005 7:48:05 AM PDT by
Jim Verdolini
(We had it all, but the RINOs stalked the land and everything they touched was as dung and ashes!)
To: Jim Verdolini
Does she view bad precedent as outranking clear intent? Fine statement of the issue. To which I would add this question ...
Does she view Roe as bad precedent?
To: Jim Verdolini
More important would be her view on Stare Decisis. Does she view bad precident as outranking clear intent?
I agree. How can someone be a "strict constructionist" and believe in stare decis?
54 posted on
07/19/2005 7:55:36 AM PDT by
frossca
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson