The fact that, in my long experience, very few federal judges have shown such a prejudice, supports my point that most federal judges are able and willing to follow the law where it leads, on behalf of any person who claims the protection of his/her rights under the First Amendment.
Got it?
John / Billybob
Thank you for your reply. My misunderstanding wasn't about what the first amendment meant, it was about how third party candidates fir into the Texas case.
I thought that case had to do with minority representation, with the Democrats arguing that minorities would be under-represented. With their unstated concern indeed being to continue to maximize the effectiveness and trends of minority support of Democrats, with no third party issues on the table.
The way I understand your point, it was not that the case involved third party issues, but rather your experience with third party cases indicated that courts generally tend to follow the law. Thus based on your experience one would expect the court to refuse the Dem's points, which they did.
I guess my further question would be that don't the Florida Supremes actions in the 2000 election violate that rule? Further, I see activist judges doing what the guy did in Pasadena, CA in ~1972 ruling that the Pasadena schools could not have a "majority of any minority", and thus he ordered busing. Or the NJ Supremes ruling changing election law at the last minute in 2002.
In other words, it seems to me, at least in many of the high visibility cases that matter, liberal judges are as likely to change laws as not. How otherwise would you explain these examples then?
Mea culpa, you did limit your comments to Federal Judges, my examples were otherwise. Although I would still appreciate your thoughts on the non-feds, what about the 9th Circuit?
While I have no examples readily at hand, do you see them as more likely that your norm to diverge from the law?? And otherwise why would the Dems be fighting so hard to stonewall Bush's judicial nominations?