Posted on 09/29/2005 8:56:08 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
a left handed, disabled, veteran, Latin female Texan district judge would be a shoo-in.........
You win the prize for Orwellian posting. Apparently you haven't availed yourself of Aristotle's explanation for why ends don't justify means.
If a rubber Constitution is to mean whatever we want it to mean, this week, it means nothing. In that respect, yours is the philosophy of a leftist who believes that the States are administrative districts of the Federal courts.
Personhood of the corporation was intended from the beginning, according to testimony by one of the prominant writers of the Fourteenth.
John Roberts agrees with me. Where the framers use general terms we should interpret them generally.
"There are some who may think they're being originalists who will tell you, Well, the problem they [the framers] were getting at were the rights of the newly freed slaves. And so that's all that the equal protection clause applies to. But, in fact, they didn't write the equal protection clause in such narrow terms. They wrote more generally.... We should take them at their word, so that is perfectly appropriate to apply the equal protection clause to issues of gender and other types of discrimination beyond the racial discrimination that was obviously the driving force behind it."
John Roberts
Remember what it would have been....
IF John Kerry Had Won
Compared to that Alberto Gonzalez would be a Godsend. (Alberto's still my front-runner at 3:1)
It's a cheap class warfare shot that's typical of the left. I, for one, would like to see more private successful professionals holding public office.
as a multimillionare he couldn't possibly be for the little guy. LOL
That may indeed be true. My point was that now that it has been contrued to include much more than originally understood, meaning disabled people, women, etc, you raise due process issues where none existed before. This puts the courts solidly into the culture war.
Chevy Chase has got to be kicking himself now.
No, there is no bias in this article. It just happens to be a fact that the GOP is a party of rich white men. (sarcasm)
Indeed it does. But that extension is small potatoes. The biggie is handing person status to corporations, which gives human rights to non-human entities. The Global Civil Society has got wind of this. We should be aware of this evolution since much that happens on the big stage is incomprehensible otherwise. Such issues as NAFTA, Seattle, Enron and sweatshops fall neatly into place in that picture, but make little sense when viewed as 'giant sucking sound' or corporate peculance.
I don't disagree with you.
But I think the nation is well served by the partnership that is created when Congress regulates and the court interprets.
I admit there are serious issues for both the courts and the Congress, but I feel pretty confortable that we, as a nation, are handling things well.
The replacement for O'Connor will not give Conservatives a comfort zone. We will need one more conservative vote. With Roberts hopefully we now have three regular conservative votes. With a new Conservative to fill O'Connor's place, we will have four regular conservative votes. There are still 5 maverick votes left on the SC. We cannot count on any of these 5 voting conservatively and not activist.
As would any statist. It happens to be wrong, for reasons that have yet to become fully apparent to you.
They wrote more generally.... We should take them at their word, so that is perfectly appropriate to apply the equal protection clause to issues of gender and other types of discrimination beyond the racial discrimination that was obviously the driving force behind it."
The things people will say to get confirmed. If you are a fan of selective incorporation, just say so. The effect is to destroy the value of representative government and bring access to government only to those who can afford legal action. Unfortunately, it builds a body of law that becomes so convoluted and internally contradictory as to be situationally applicable.
If we take Conklin and Bingham (the authors of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause) at their words, the equal protection clause was written to confer the rights of citizenship to corporations.
I agree with that. But, for seeing what is going on, what the attraction is for candidates to have $millions to spend on elections, what campaign finance reform is really about, why there is such as thing as the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty, and a lot of similar scenery along the national and state political roads, I need a hook. The USSC know what they are doing if anybody does, most of the Congresscritters know, too. The elephant in the room is corporations.
We may have to agree to disagree.
So I'll state my position.
I am very pleased with the current state of 14th amendment jurisprudence and I am delighted to have John Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States.
We disagree there. The current state exaggerates the establishment clause at the expense of free exercise, it incorporates parts of the Fifth, but not others, it permits outrageous gun regulation by local government by failure to enforce the Second, it makes a joke of the Tenth... in short, selective incorporation is inconsistent and an abomination of justice. You like it that way, probably because you have a deficit in understanding the operation of Federalism under natural law.
I'm just not a fan of government by fiat.
The jury is out on Justice Roberts. I don't know what to make of him. Time will tell.
I agree that selective incorporation presents some challenges. I hope that eventually we get to complete incorporation of the first eight amendments. And I think we will. We need to get a second amendment case up to the top.
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.