Posted on 10/31/2005 3:12:28 AM PST by kcvl
Per Fox News...
Yeah, I've noticed that. It's disappointing as I used to think that only the Left bought into cults of personality.
Please quote where I said that I wanted to maintain the balance. I said that I we shouldn't maintain the balance.
In any event, we are pretty much maintaining the balance even though the democrats are accusing of us moving it far to the right and by comparing Alito to O'Conner they will probably get traction on it.
Going into bunker mode isn't going to help matters.
I think Roberts will turn out to be just as conservative as Rehnquist, though perhaps we should use the term constitutionalist rather than conservative. In reality, there are no conservative judges on the court, if we define that as being a judge who uses his office to forcibly impose conservative policies on the country. The court is currently divided between judges who use the court to force liberalism on the country and judges who don't. The media describe those who don't force liberalism down our throats via judicial fiat as "conservatives" or "right-wingers". But in fact those judges are not the right-wing ideological mirror image of the left-wing judges on the court.
The court isn't divided between judges who would use the court to force the leftist position on culture war issues on the country and judges who would use the court to impose the rightist position on culture war issues on the country. It's divided between judges who would impose those leftist policies and judges who would leave those issues to the voters to decide.
So the entire media characterization of this fight is false. It's not a question of whether we'll be governed by leftist judges or by rightist judges. It's whether we'll be governed by leftist judges or will be allowed to govern ourselves.
I didn't say you wanted to maintain the balance. I said you wanted to argue we are maintaining the balance.
It's all over your posts when you talk about winning the argument with the left by pairing O'Connor with Roberts and Rehnquist with Alito.
To hell with their argument. Make your own argument. There are too many judges who use their power on the court to issue social policy, rather than decide constitutionality. We need to proudly proclaim how we want issues left in the hands of the states and the people, not in the hands of nine robed high-priests proclaiming ukases from on high.
Idealy you are correct. But in this senate, balance probably does matter. For example, there is no way that this de facto democratically controlled senate would allow Ginsburg to be replaced by someone like Alito.
My point is that the replacements for Rhenquist and O'Conner probably shifted the court just a little to the right, but the way that we structured the deal, it makes it look like we're shifting it a huge amount to the right.
I don't care anything about balance, but I'm not the one with a confirmation vote either. We have to remember that democrats have two sets of rules, one for them and one for us. To them, the Ginsburg confirmation is ancient history.
Precisely!
Exactly! And the whole "balance" argument is flawed even it theory. There is no right-wing equivalent on the court to the left-wing judges. The media define a "balanced" court as follows: A court where five or six judges seek to impose leftist policies on the country from the bench, where three or four judges seek to leave those policy decisions to the voters, and where zero judges seek to impose rightist policies on the country from the bench.
I agree that 'conservative' and 'liberal' are political terms and not judicial philosophies, but many judges use their own political ideology to direct their judicial activism philosophy.
Rhenquist has shown an activist streak in the past which is why I refer to him as a conservative rather than an originalist or a constructionalist. It should also be pointed out that Rhenquist was not appointed for his originalist philosophy but for his conservative ideology.
Yes there is. It can most often be detected when in cases involving illegal search and seizures.
YUP!
But guess whose blood will be on the floor?
The liberals'.
LOL
IT'S CLOBBERING TIME!
Really? Can you give me an example?
FYI, Scalia is probably the biggest opponent of seach and seizure abuse in the USSC! The Left, not the right, is more likely to empower the state, just as they did with eminent domaine on the Kelo case.
Sure Rhenquist when ruled in favor of sobriety roadblocks.
I know it is.
I think maybe they stuck their fingers in an electrical socket when they had their tinfoil on this morning....
With who else?
Thanks! I'd thought he voted against. I hope you're right about his being afraid of Colorado conservatives, though he's not up for re-election until 2010. I've e-mailed him urging him to vote for Alito
You gotta look at the net results. Bush is replacing one moderate and one conservative with one moderate and one conservative -- AND WE SHOULD NOT LET THE MEDIA SPIN IT THE OTHER WAY as if Bush was somehow moving the court to the right!
Understand that I'm NOT advocating for some balance crap. Screw balance. I'm just saying GW should be sharp with the media, and not let them spin it to the zombie public out there, that he is somehow "unfairly" moving the court to the right.
DU is zombie lefto
Thanks Me Lady. Lol, yeah, Eye-Talian and all, eh? I'm hoping Alito is to the right of Scalia :-) Their first case should be an important one -- to challenge the constitutionality of pizza with pineapples! :-D
Oh...Dubya did actually give my people a call, but can ya believe the bad timing of my illness??!!
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.