[Perlstein]

To: dead

"James Madison's great insights in Federalist 51 that in America we are supposed to place our ultimate trust in laws, not men. "

So you're trying to get the Dem Senators to approve "original intent" or "strict constructionist" judges? I must have missed that article.

It would be especially nice to see an article in the Village Voice bemoaning the way judges who don't feel bound by the rule of law have led to the backlash of a federal marriage protection act or amendment.
-----

Mr. Smith, honoring the BASIC CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATION OF THE CONSTITUTION, as laid out by the federalists, is different from insisting on a patisan definition of "strict constructionism," no? And a senator honors the constiution by fulfilling the advise and consent function of the senate in judicial appointments--which is why Republicans held up Clinton judicial opponents, no?

Finally, if there have been federal judicial decisions on gay marriage, I'm not aware of them.

Rick

[Phantom Lord]

And a senator honors the constiution by fulfilling the advise and consent function of the senate in judicial appointments--which is why Republicans held up Clinton judicial opponents, no?

Can you name for us one Clinton judicial nominee that was fillibustered and required to clear a 60 vote hurdle to get a floor vote?

If memory serves me right, every single Clinton judicial nominee except one got a floor vote, and that one was withdrawn by Clinton when it was clear that the nominee wasn't going to make it out of committee.

[WOSG]

"Mr. Smith, honoring the BASIC CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATION OF THE CONSTITUTION, as laid out by the federalists, is different from insisting on a patisan definition of "strict constructionism," no?"

There is nothing partisan about strict constructionism.
Surely you agree that judicial over-reach is not just a liberal thing - havent you heard about Lochner v New York (1905 USSC decision)?

strict constructionism and judicial restraint a good thing for Judges of every stripe to have, if you belive in Federalism (or was that Madison quote just misdirection?) and it would benefit both liberals and conservatives who have faith in *3* branches of Government not just one!

Don't you agree that liberal and conservative Judges *both* should engage in "judicial restraint" and not usurp the powers of the other branches?

[mrsmith]

LOL! The description is "partisan" and the argument is therefore invalid!
Oh, that's sweet!
Use whatever desciption of judges following the Constitution you like! Or praise the Liberal "living constitution" and admit you place your trust in men.

And then you respond to the strawman of "federal judicial decisions on gay marriage" instead of "judges who don't feel bound by the rule of law have led to the backlash of a federal marriage protection act or amendment." .

Whatever... my afternoon offers more constructive choices.