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


1 posted on 07/09/2002 11:26:27 PM PDT by Pokey78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: summer; JohnHuang2; Sabertooth; MeeknMing
Ping.
2 posted on 07/09/2002 11:27:14 PM PDT by Pokey78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: *SCOTUS_List
.
3 posted on 07/09/2002 11:35:43 PM PDT by Libertarianize the GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Pokey78
Thanks. That's a keeper.
8 posted on 07/10/2002 12:44:22 AM PDT by Texas_Jarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Pokey78
Thanks for the post and the ping, Pokey!

Free the da$$hole 50 and release Bush's judicial appointments NOW, Leahy!:

What the liberals fear is a conservative judicial philosophy called “originalism,” which holds that judges must base their rulings on the Constitution’s text and structure, as the Framers understood it, and they must interpret statutes to mean what they say. Very different from the activist and creative jurisprudence that has prevailed for the last half-century, this approach, which was the Framers’ accepted view of judging, would never have permitted the Court’s expansive policymaking role that produced some of the Left’s most cherished victories. An originalist Court could even overturn some of those victories as unanchored in the Constitution.

Regardless of your view of the specific policies at issue, it is vital to America’s future that Bush win this battle for the courts: the Supreme Court’s politicized role in recent decades is corroding the self-government at the heart of American constitutionalism. In a democracy, voters, not unelected judges, decide the momentous questions. When the Supreme Court forces its policy preferences on the American people without the clear warrant of a constitutional text, as has happened often in the last 50 years, it is acting more as an “anti-democratic Caesar” than as the impartial referee it’s supposed to be, in Justice Scalia’s view. Moreover, by politicizing constitutional law, the Court has weakened the rule of law that is the bedrock of our constitutional form of government. As Justice Thomas notes, if law is just politics, “then there are no courts at all, only legislatures, and no Constitution or law at all, only opinion polls.” Why then would you need unelected judges to perform the same function as an elected congress?


10 posted on 07/10/2002 8:03:40 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Pokey78
Great article.
11 posted on 07/10/2002 8:11:44 AM PDT by white trash redneck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Pokey78
Great post!
12 posted on 07/10/2002 8:20:10 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Pokey78
Bump! Thanks for posting a great article.
15 posted on 07/10/2002 9:39:00 AM PDT by PogySailor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Pokey78; BOBTHENAILER
Whew...long article!...I certainly don't agree with every single point the author makes...but overall it's a good piece.

...it is vital to America’s future that Bush win this battle for the courts: the Supreme Court’s politicized role in recent decades is corroding the self-government at the heart of American constitutionalism.

Indeed.

There are few things that are more important for our republic, long-term.

EV

16 posted on 07/10/2002 9:45:03 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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