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

To: Cold Heat

Dear Cold Heat,

Actually, Justice Scalia is more of a strict constructionist than Justice Thomas. Justice Scalia believes that the proper way to interpret the Constitution is by looking at the text of the document itself, and to a limited degree, what men meant by the words at the time they were written.

Justice Thomas, however, interprets the Constitution according to a natural law philosophy. He believes the underlying philosophical premise of the Constitution is tied up in natural law and natural rights.

Since the Founders largely believed in natural law and natural rights, Justices Thomas and Scalia often agree with one another. However, there are some subtle differences.

But, you appear to speak somewhat approvingly of these Justices. Do you approve of them? Would you mind if we had three or four more?

If we did, Roe would not survive.

By the way, as for borking, it is ironic that you, of all people, should mention that on this thread, of all threads, as it has largely been about whether or not Mr. Specter should become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

It is Mr. Specter who borked Judge Bork.

That is an excellent reason why he ought to be prevented from ascending to the chairmanship.



sitetest


1,448 posted on 11/14/2004 12:27:07 PM PST by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1432 | View Replies ]


To: sitetest
Natual law my butt.

Scalia is good, but Thomas is totally consistant. Thomas is more like Bork than Bork is.

1,461 posted on 11/14/2004 12:39:07 PM PST by Cold Heat (There is more to do! "Mr. Kerry, about that Navy discharge?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1448 | 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