Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: PhiKapMom; gopusa.com
If the court wanted to make a true statement for the need to end racism, they should not have legally sanctioned the continuation of race as a factor in college admissions. Instead, the court should have stuck to the Constitution! It does not get much clearer than the 14th Amendment which states that citizens are guaranteed equal protection under the law. Discriminating to end discrimination is not equal protection.

Well said Bobby Eberle.

PresBush said to Tim Russert during the "2000 Campaign", that his idea of a Supreme Court Justice, would be to appoint someone in the mold of Anton Scalia or Clarence Thomas. I agree and would add the name of William Reinquest to that very short list. Kennedy and O'Conner aren't ardent conservatives and haven't lived up to their original billing.

OTOH, its hard for any president, or anyone else for that matter to predict how a SC nominee will turn out after 25-35 years on the nations highest court. The appointments of Warren Burger, Earl Warren and David Souter are recent examples of some judges, who over a period of time have drastically changed their judicial perspective and have come to be influenced by outside sources.

Judges need to stick to the original intent of the Constitution and follow the Founding Fathers prescription for our constitutional Republic. Judicial activism isn't the sign of a conservative court.

24 posted on 06/30/2003 8:56:23 AM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: Reagan Man
It does not get much clearer than the 14th Amendment which states that citizens are guaranteed equal protection under the law. Discriminating to end discrimination is not equal protection.

The Constitution is not worth a warm pitcher of spit. The Supreme Court always rules as it wants to rule no matter what the words on the parchment say.

If leftists control the court they will say the constitution means whatever they want it to mean... no matter what the words in that document mean.

If Conservatives rule the court, they will mostly rule correctly according to the meaning of the document. But if their were No Written Constitution Conservative Justices would still make the same rulings.

Anyone who thinks the words in the Constitution have any bearing on court rulings, has not studied the last 198 years of court decisions.


28 posted on 06/30/2003 9:10:23 AM PDT by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson