Posted on 08/17/2005 3:30:27 PM PDT by neverdem
WASHINGTON, Aug. 16 - It was July 1985 and the newly confirmed attorney general, Edwin Meese III, was preparing to address the American Bar Association. Trouble was, he was conflicted about what to say.
A 17-day hostage crisis involving a hijacked American airliner had just ended, and Mr. Meese felt obliged to discuss terrorism. But the Supreme Court had just delivered a series of decisions that infuriated conservatives and reinforced President Ronald Reagan's resolve to steer the judiciary rightward.
In the end, Mr. Meese gave what many say was the speech of his career. Helping lay the foundation for the judicial wars that continue today, he advocated a "jurisprudence of original intention." The philosophy he promoted, one of strict adherence to what proponents say were the intentions of the writers of the Constitution, inspired a generation of conservatives - including, some say, a young lawyer named John G. Roberts Jr., now a Supreme Court nominee.
"He certainly fits the kind of excellent judges that we were looking for and that President Bush is looking for," Mr. Meese said of Judge Roberts in an interview.
Vilified by liberals as an ideologue and embroiled in frequent disputes with more moderate figures within the Reagan administration, Mr. Meese is now lionized by conservatives for his role in reshaping the judiciary. At 73, he is still at it.
In the months leading up to the nomination of Judge Roberts to the court, Mr. Meese played a central role in strategy sessions with conservative leaders and representatives from the White House.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Jose R. Lopez/The New York Times"Original intent" is a 1980s concept?
What a bunch of dopes at the NYTimes!
Well, it is---and 1970's, 1960's, 1950's----------1790's.
Also, 1990's, 2000's, 2010's.........................
Original intent sounds more like a 1776 concept to me.
Hey, give 'em a break. This stuff is all new to many, many liberal ostriches.
Oh, OK, now 9/11 is Meeese's fault. Geeze, the left is really having to dig on this one.
Anything to spare their golden boy, Billy C. (Although, btw, I don't think Reagan was much better on terrorism than Carter - or Clinton.)
As if Earl Warren hadn't precipitated any conflict.
The modern Court can trace itself to the 1920s in Gitlow v. New York, wherein the "selective incorporation doctrine" was "invented."
Well, given that the Constitution was only ratified in 1789, I didn't figure that "original intent" could be legitimately pushed back any further than that.
LOL! You would think Vice President Bush could have had his name mentioned.
BTW, he looks like a schoolboy in a play and his attention is directed to some awe-inspiring "thing" only a kid would appreciate.
I love it!
Golly, even Frankfurter and Black subscribed to something like "origina; intent," which had to do with the interpretation of text.
lol
Good point. But you get the drift.
Most definitely. The whole Constitution was written to protect the ideas born in 1776.
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.