Posted on 07/18/2005 8:13:56 PM PDT by mysonsfuture
Well the 14th amendment forever encased M v M into concrete. The 13th amendment isn't called the judges playground for nothing.
I want a court that understands that they have limited power and that power is to interpret the Constitution, not to make law, not to make social judgements and not to be guided by what the Europeans think.
Originalists, in the Scalia mode, are fine. If there is a doubt as to the plain meaning of the language and the language contains ole English phrasing then by all means investigate ole English law to find out what the writers meant by using that phrase.
But that doesn't give license to Justices to cite European mores in making decisions on the United States Constitution.
Every amendment and every word of the constitution has an original intent not just the original amendments. To honor that original intent is the only way to make consistent decisions on constitutionality. If the constitution needs to "grow" then amend it.
As for "stare decisis", it's a joke. The Justices embrace it when it accrues to their ideology and reject it when it doesn't. Lawrence v Texas overturned settled law almost two decades old, see Bowers v Hardwick.
No, Thomas is right concerning stare decisis and Scalia is wrong IMHO. LOL, a blue collar guy telling Scalia he's wrong.
Settled law that is bad law is no law at all. Roe should be dismantled and Edith Jones knows exactly how to do it.
Just a note about Edith Clement and her expertise in maritime law. In the 5th circuit, maritime law is synonymous with oil law, because of all of the offshore platforms. Maybe Bush bumped into her while in Texas, and liked what he heard. :)
That's good news. I read on FR awhile back that the abortionist, Munson, formerly of Rapid City kicked the bucket. I'm guessing the remaining clinic is in Sioux Falls.
I'm an east river native South Dakotan myself, though I've been living in Minnesota for the past 20 years.
I like your homepage pic of the wagon trail. West river South Dakota is stunningly beautiful!
Back to subject, I'm sure abortion clinics would disappear there tomorrow if Roe v Wade was declared unconstitutional.
Astute. This is all political afterall. But, I guess I don't care why he chooses strict constructionist... just so long that he does.
Well, at least you have been raising some concern for awhile. In any event, I do hope we are not Soutered. Hopefully he will pick somebody that we all know to be definitely conservative so there isn't a massive FR fight or something like I am sure there will be if Clement is picked.
And here I thought he traded the SCOTUS for a new bowling ball.
IMO, a point that isn't raised is how socially inclined a Justice may be. It seems the more they enjoy interacting with the society set in Washington, the more they seek to please them in court rulings. Whomever it is, it should be someone comfortable with who they are and what they believe that doesn't seek to please the papers.
And, I agree.
She may be ideal or not ideal. I don't know. She wasn't on the probable list of candidates I examined, though I am aware her name has been in the running. We'll know soon enough. But emotional reaction should be based on facts, and precious few know her record on FR.
This is similiar to the Gonzales hysteria.
The only thing that Specter is well grounded in is being an SOB RINO Rat B@$t@rd betrayer. Believe me, he has no corner on understanding the law. Truth be known, he never should have been Senate judiciary chairman in the first place if Repuke senators had any backbone to their spines!
Now having gotten that off my chest, I have to admit that I don't have a good feeling at all about Bush's pending plans or announcement for SCOTUS nomination. Incredibly enough the only group that Bush has chosen to publicly chastise and berate has been the conservative majority base that put he & other Repukes into office. Cowardly Pres Bush didn't even rebuke the DemonRATS for mocking and scorning and making racist comments about Condoleeza Rice (who they derided as Aunt Jemina) or ugly comments about Janice Rogers Brown.... yet Bush blasts the conservatives for voicing the numerous concerns and reservations about Alberto Gonzales, including the fact that Gonzales has declared that "The constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is"! Wow if that is isn't liberal judicial activism at its worst, I don't know what is. The problem is that in reality Pres. Bush is NOT a genuine conservative but rather a closet moderate at best. He used us to to get elected and re-elected....and ever since Nov 2, he has been in retreat!
I don't have a good feeling at all about this. Ever since O'Conner announced her plans to retire from SCOTUS, Pres. Bush has been back pedaling and hedging and positioning himself to announce a "concensus mainstream nominee", which in likelihood will give us another waffling O'Conner or Anthony Kennedy, perhaps even a Souter wannabee.
To my awareness, ever since O'Conner announcement, Pres. Bush has not mentioned at all his campaign promise to nominate judges in the mold of Scalia or Thomas. In fact Pres. Bush has pointedly announced that he will have no litmus tests for the nominees.... in other words, culturally conservative nominees (pro-life, pro-family, pro-Am pledge, pro-10 commandments, pro-constitutional) will not have the inside track and may not even be in his 1st or 2nd tier of candidates, as he had previously led us to believe.
I hope I'm wrong... I hope that Bush surprises us and follows through on his campaign promises for SCOTUS nominees.... but given the scorecard since Nov 2 (conservatives 0, Pres. Bush-GOP cowards-RINOS-DemonRATS 114 or something like that), I will be surprised!!!
nice explanation...thanks
I doubt Clement will cause much of a ruckus. Gonzales would have. In either case I'd hold my fire until I saw the red in their eyes. :-}
thanks
I believe he is Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
I agree 100% with your correction.
So you want the SC to close the borders? That is what this thread is about, the USSC that has NO enforcement capability at all much less closing the borders.
"Because Congress would have to authorize the money and resources to do so. But don't let facts get in the way of your Bush hatred."
Has Bush tried to get congress to authorize money for border security? No. Bush is also suppose to have congress authorize the money for Africa but he didn't.
Without that blackmail, there wouldn't have been the 3/4 of the states needed to enact the amendments.
Nice jumping to conclusions there.
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.