Posted on 12/31/2002 6:39:08 AM PST by Afronaut
Edited on 07/06/2004 6:38:33 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON -- White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, the soft- spoken son of migrant farm workers, has emerged as the overwhelming favorite for a Supreme Court nomination in the months ahead, a move that would give President Bush a historic and politically powerful chance to name the first Latino to the nation's highest court.
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
Each branch has spent decades usurping their current level of power, they're not about to throw it out overnight by actually following the Constitution...
In fact, some criticism of the appointment from the misinformed social conservatives would probably help in getting some Democrat votes for his confirmation.
Or would you have preferred a Supreme Court nominee from President Gore?
Exactly. In my view, if enough strict constructionists are on the bench - regardless of their personal views - the country will shift toward a more limited government. Judicial activism benefits liberals to such an extent that a strict reading would inevitably help conservatives. To insist on judicial activism toward conservative ends is not only unconstitutional - it will harm the conservative cause itself by promoting more activist rulings and further diluting the Founders' original intent.
I know. And there's little hope in the near-term for the legislative or executive branches, since the American public appears to want more government. The largest strides we can hope for are reducing the rate of government growth - not reducing its absolute size.
The judiciary is likely where conservatives can gain considerable ground.
Unless the ban is based on a violation of the civil rights of the fetus, do you understand that if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, a PBA ban would probably die with it?
Overturning Roe wouldn't outlaw abortion, it would defederalize it, returning the matter to the States.
Each State would then need to pass it's own PBA ban.I favor this, by the way. I'm pro-life and pro-Constitution. Abortion should not be a federal matter at all.
I love Dubya. But if he nomninates a single pro-Roe judge, my wife and I stay home. I will tolerate him going left on business, economy, education, size of government, etc. I WILL NOT tolerate him going left on guns or abortion. Call me names if you wish, but that's two votes he loses.
Agreed, but anyone going along with the accumulated FedCreep to date falls short of the mark of a "strict constructionist."
Perhaps "light constructionist" is a better term?
Are we talkin' about judges or salad dressings? :^)
I think light constructionist is probably what we would get in the short term, as someone adhering to even that limited viewpoint would be considered as some kind of right-wing neanderthal by the press and a goodly quantity of the American electorate. Face it, folks with our views just ain't that common anymore, so if I had to venture a guess, a light constructionist is what we would get. However, if we get six of them on the bench, methinks they could gain weight in a hurry...
Ginsburg is my sleeper vacancy. She may have beaten colon cancer, but she still looks unhealthy to me.
I want to start replacing the four on the far left of the court, although I'd have to believe that none of them will be the first to step down.
A New World Order ends America..it does not matter who oversees it..
DB: Great question, and IMO the answer is "it depends on how you do it."
I understand what you're getting at, but I believe we need more clarity, or we will lose this debate with the Left.
Judicial activism occurs when legislation is conducted from the bench, in violation of the Separation of Powers.
Throwing out such activist, judicial legislation, is never "activist" itself, regardless of the magnitude of the consequences.
If the Right doesn't get clear on that and consistently make that case, the debate will be framed by the Left as one set of activists against another. The Separation of Powers is the device that balances our democratic republic. Violating the Separation erodes both our our democratic (small "d") and republican (small "r") traditions, to the detriment of all.
Exactly. Which is why the President must be re-elected, because one or more of the leftists is not going to make it until January 2009.
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.