Free Republic Opinion Poll on Deciding Factor for Supreme Court Nominees

Free Republic Opinion Poll ^ | July 13, 2005 | Jim Robinson

[Jim Robinson]

With O'Connor's retirement, Rehnquist's possible retirement this summer, and hints of the possibility that Ginsburg and Stevens may be retiring within his term, President Bush has an historic opportunity to reshape the court. This is the opportunity that we've all been fighting for. Most of us are counting on the president filling these vacancies with solid conservatives who respect and abide by the Constitution and we will be sadly disappointed if the president appoints squishy moderates.

Sadly disappointed? Did I say, sadly disappointed? Hell, we'll be up in arms!

But that's just my opinion. Before we go much further in this discussion, I'd like to get yours. Please answer the following FR poll question, then come back and post your opinion.

Assuming a potential supreme court nominee is qualified in all other respects, which of the following concerns should be the deciding factor:

Acceptable to minority party
Maintain balance of court
Must be moderate
Must be mainstream
Gender/race/ethnicity
Friendship/loyalty
Pro life/marriage
Must be originalist
Other
Pass

[processing please hold]

I don't think the Constitution has anything to say about the definition of marriage. Marriage and divorce laws are matters for the states under the Constitution.

Does the constitution have anything to say about abortions?

[Cicero]

I voted pro-life, because for me that's the most basic issue of all, and the issue that has done most to distort our laws. It is the one issue people feel most strongly about, on both sides, the one issue that cannot be compromised--because you can't half-kill a baby, much as hillary might wish to propose such a solution.

But in my opinion, Roe v. Wade NEVER would have seen the light of day if we had had strict constructionists on the court back then. So Originalist is just as good, as far as I'm concerned.

[musanon]

brazzaville:
Originalist, with support of the 2nd Amendment being the bottom line.

---

With an Originalist, is there even a question about the 2nd amendment?
80 pbrown

---

You would be surprised how few 2nd supporting 'originalists' are on the list of nominees. -- And how many of FR's originalists support the 'right' of States to prohibit assault weapons.

There is a big question indeed on the original meaning of States powers. Many originalists give states the power to ignore the bill of rights.

[inquest]

"In the context of U.S. Constitutional interpretation, originalism is a family of theories which share the starting point that a Constitution (or statute) does not evolve in meaning, but rather, has a fixed and knowable meaning, which should be adhered to by Judges."

"Theory"? What would be a counter-"theory" that someone would actually stand up and go on record as advocating? I know there are plenty of non-originalist judges out there, but are there any who actually stand up and say, "I'm not an originalist"?

It'd be like saying you don't believe in the "theory" that 2+2=4.

[processing please hold]

I can't support any nominee who doesn't back the 2nd amendment to the hilt. I never will.

The 2nd, is all that stands between us and tyranny. An unarmed populace, is easier to control.

[grellis]

Pro-life

[inquest]

The 2nd, is all that stands between us and tyranny.

Actually the 4th amendment is just about as important. Many people underestimate it, thinking that if the government spies on them but otherwise "leaves them alone", their rights aren't really being violated. But nothing could be more dangerously deceptive. People under Saddam's rule had the right to keep and bear arms, but they were under his regime's constant surveillance, and so were powerless against it because they couldn't act collectively.

We need to absolutely insist on a justice who restrains the power of government agents to spy on us and take arbitrary actions against us. That unfortunately is one of the points that gets almost completely lost in the debate over judges.

[JustAnAmerican]

That's what I get for not editing out more from Wikipedia's definition. But hopefully most here got the gist of what an Originalist is. You just have to edit out the nonsensical parts when dealing with definitions from internet sources.

[LucyJo]

God, Country, and Original Intent of the U.S. Constitution!

[processing please hold]

We need to absolutely insist on a justice who restrains the power of government agents to spy on us and take arbitrary actions against us.

You're absolutely right. The 4th amendment seems to get pushed into the netherland, which is why I'm against some provisions in the PA.

Please people, no sharp knives or objects should be thrown at me in regards to the PA.

[musanon]

I agree. -- As Barnett says:

"-- The whole reason to have a written constitution, like a written contract, is to "lock in" some meaning that can only be changed by proper procedures. Otherwise, why bother? --"

And in my opinion, no 'proper procedure' even exists for changing the 2nd.

[steveegg]

Why is Originalist so far down on the list? :-)

[inquest]

I wasn't slamming you. I knew you were quoting from another source. My beef with calling originalism a "theory" is that it implies that there are other "theories" that have an equal claim to legitimacy. But the problem is, I've yet to see any judge actually forthrightly proclaim that originalism is an incorrect doctrine, and put forth one that he thinks is correct. What they do instead is pretty much ignore talk of originalism, and just rule the way they want to rule.

[processing please hold]

And in my opinion, no 'proper procedure' even exists for changing the 2nd.

'Proper procedure' is a sticking point for some. They'll search and search till they think they have found a back door to abolish the 2nd amendment.

The SCOTUS found a way around imminent domain...didn't they.

IMHO, the MIB are probbing deeper and deeper into testing what we Americans will and will not stand for. They only received a few weeks heat over giving big business the right to take our property.

[inquest]

Please people, no sharp knives or objects should be thrown at me in regards to the PA.

Well, I guess I'll just have to put away my boxcutter. ;-)

[ladyinred]

I voted originalist, by the way.

Me too. Very important to me.

[LibertarianInExile]

Ooooh, I'm voting "Pass." /sarc

What knucklehead votes PASS in a free poll like this? It's like people who call 976 poll numbers and proudly state "no opinion" or "unsure." And yet nearly 30 have done so thus far. What a bunch of numbnuts.

[processing please hold]

Well, I guess I'll just have to put away my boxcutter. ;-)

I'm not a terrorist and shouldn't be spied upon as if I were. Profiling will help with that problem. When 50+ year old grandmothers start becoming terrorist and flying planes into buildings, then they can start profiling me. :-)

[processing please hold]

I've yet to cast my vote. I'm waiting to be sure, so far, I'm Originalist, that looks like the wisest choice.

[brazzaville]

Good evening.

"Getting originalist Justices on the Federal benches is THE most important domestic issue in the USA."

The DemocRATs know this, too. It's going to be a nasty confirmation process, with an important election to follow.

Michael Frazier