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.
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