Posted on 07/13/2005 3:48:33 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Edited on 07/13/2005 4:11:42 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
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
It seems to me that "Originalist" is another word for "Strict Constructionist" and is, therefore, conservative. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Originalist, if that means interpreting the Constitution with great deference to its original meaning. All the rest is just fluff.
Strict constitutionalist. (Originalist)
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. A neologism, "originalism" is similar to legalist traditionalism, and is popular among U.S. political conservatives;
An originalist on record as saying Roe should be overturned, and that the Constitution in no way requires the govt to offer any legal recognition to same-sex relationships, and who thinks the First Amendment provision barring Congress from establishing a religion doesn't also ban local communities from putting a nativity scene outside city hall, and who doesn't think illegal aliens deserve citizen-like status, and.................................................................just to be sure!
originalist i voted because the u.s. constitution is prior to religion.
I believe I agree with you there...
The poll is a bit screwy in one option: prolife does not dictate a heteronormative marriage viewpoint and you've lumped those together. I guess I'll say "orginalist" assuming that's someone in the Thomas/Scalia mold.
Acceptable to Minority Party was tempting, but after I stopped laughing I voted "originalist."
OK, if originalist means Constitutionalist -- or strict constructionist -- then I change my vote to that! At first glance I was interpreting it as someone with original (creative) thinking, and that is not good for the country. We don't need any more people who divine inalienable rights where no one has ever seen them before (like the right to kill your child.)
It all goes back to the constitution as it was written.
As a proud member of the Constitution Party, there's no question.
Originalist!
Someone who stands up for the working man on economic/consumer/labor issues and conservative on social issues such as gun control. works for me.
Must be originalist
I voted originalist also. I believe that the fathers/founders of our country, debated and debated and came up what they thought was the best course for our country!
I voted "other" also for the same reasons as you cited.
I just heard the Chief Justice is back in the hospital.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.