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 ...
"Liberal constructionist" is a contradiction in terms, AP. If Gonzales makes his decision based on the plain writing of the Constitution, then he's a strict constructionist - liberal vs. conservative labels do not apply. His personal views on any issue become unimportant, so long as he applies the law fairly and in an unbiased fashion.
So-called conservatives must understand that what we need in the federal judiciary are judges who rule based on the law - not those who make it themselves. That goes for judicial activism of the conservative stripe as well as liberal.
(Miss Marple, I included you here because the original post was to you. Happy Holidays, have a nice New Year.)
I do believe that judicial activism is bad. But the sad fact is we've strayed so far from the Constitution that we've come to the point where it does exist. And it seems to exist ONLY in one direction.
So, let's accept the fact that it exists AND THAT LIBERALS WILL FIGHT TO THE DEATH when it is their PET CAUSE that is at stake.
I, as a Christian first, pro-lifer second, and conservative third would at least like to see those I support politically TAKE A STAND when the question of judicial activism come up in the other direction.
Instead, THEY roll over and play dead - and WE'RE patted on the head and told to shut up and go to the back of the bus.
Then you don't understand what a strict constructionist is.
I would rather have a moderate who adheres to strict constructionism than a conservative who is tempted to use judicial activism to promote his own views and agenda - becase a strict constructionist will bring this country more back in line with the Constitution, which is the most PROFOUNDLY conservative action I can imagine. You, however, have completely bought into the notion that the Supreme Court legislates from the bench, and want it to promote your agenda. You, quite frankly, are little different than, and nearly as dangerous as, the liberal jurists you castigate. You do not condemn their usupration of power, you simply want it as your own. Bork described that as temptation, and you have fallen for it.
Two of the major reasons why the Dems have lost the House, Senate and most state legislatures is affirmative action and abortion.
So the question is : How does he view the Amendments. Does he thing the 2nd Amendment guarantees citizens the right to own a gun and carry that gun on their person? Don't you think we should find out before we call his a "conservative"?
If I believed that I'd start sitting out elections. Roe is an insult to our Constitution and the principles of our concept of republican rule. If you don't believe that you are posting on the wrong site.
Because he changed his mind about wanting to be a pilot and decided to become an attorney instead.
The best way you can take away their ammo is to simply demand that a strict constructionist be appointed. When Appy Pappy demands we know everything about a nominees political views, it will turn the confirmation into a circus. We only need to know that he will uphold the Constitution - and, over the course of, say, twenty years on the bench, that will have a snowballing impact on rolling up the liberal agenda.
The Constitution is our home turf. All we need is for the game to be played there, not at the liberal home field of judicial activism, which should be imploded like Cinergy Field. Because if we keep that field around for our own agenda, sooner or later the libs will get it back.
Again, I don't particularly care about his personal political views, so long as he is a strict constructionist. Just because most strict constructionists are conservatives does not mean the two are synonymous. Likewise with judicial activists and liberals.
As far as the Second Amendment, a strict constructionist would look at the plain writing and take the conservative position. A judicial activist would not.
If the law is unconstitutional, then yes. If he overturned to because the law is "unfair", then no.
I think asking him about his reading of the Constitution would be a fair line of questioning. Asking his opinion of specific laws or previous SCOTUS opinions would not...
I agree and that's why I ask "what is his view on the plain writing of the Constitution in regards to the 2nd Amendment? And the 1st?". I want to know that in order to determine whether he really is a conservative nominee vs a liberal one.
It depends on the grounds. If the law is unconstitutional, it must be overturned by a strict constructionist, if that question is put before the court, and the question is within the jurisdiction of that court.
However, overturning a law does not make a judge a strict constructionist. Many liberal activist judges have invented grounds to overturn laws they don't like.
I see you're reduced to personalizing this debate. Face it, you messed up with that comment, now admit it like a man.
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.