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

To: Proud Conservative2
GW did NOT nominate the type of a person that he told us he would.

He said he would nominate an originalist in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. He believes he has done so. Your capitalized words not withstanding, you cannot accuse him of breaking the promise without knowing something that the rest of us don't. Now you can argue that we cannot independently verify her views, but you undermine your point by trying to proclaim that he broke a promise.

209 posted on 10/12/2005 6:47:46 AM PDT by AmishDude (If Miers isn't qualified, neither are you and you have no right to complain about any SC decision.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies ]


To: AmishDude
He said he would nominate an originalist in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. He believes he has done so.

I've tinkering with what I think could be a test to justify "trust in stealth." The object is to grasp the ramifications of "strict constructionist" in President Bush's rhetoric.

The term "strict constuctionist" is broad sweeping, indefinite. It tends to paint a view that conservatives find attractive, we are emotionally attracted to "strict constructionst," and yet we don't probe much deeper. Judicial conservatives (Federalist Society adherants, if you will) want what -THEY- see as strict constructionists. But what does George Bush consider to be a strict constructionist?

Would President Bush say that Gonzales is a strict constructionist? We have a record on Gonzales. So, while we can't probe the record of Miers, we might be able to get a handle on how flexible or rigid the term "strict constructionist" plays out from President Bush's rhetoric.

I see Gonzales as a judicial activist. The link below explains how I reach that conclusion. He and Owen were on opposite sides of the parental notification case in Texas. Tha case is a clear window on the interpretation of "strict constructionist." Either Owen is a strict constuctionsit, or Gonzales is, but it is not logical that they both be.

The sophists will argue that the court let the law stand, no legislation from the bench. Or that the court didn't strike down the law, so there was no judicial activism. I say read the case and draw your own conclusion. By the sophists definition, the Florida Supreme Court was not activist in the 2000 election. But in fact, it was. And so was the Texas Supreme Court in parental notification. IMO.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1500960/posts?page=70#70 <- link for the student

233 posted on 10/12/2005 7:15:50 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | 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