Replies

No, I am not dancing around. A liberal constructionist would use the opportunity to re-write the law to suit his preferred outcome, even if there were no justification other than feelings of what's "fair." (Rather like the New Jersey Supreme Court and their wholesale overriding of New Jersey election law because they desired to let the Rats have a new candidate.)

I must say that you are being willfully obtuse. There are at least 5 replies explaining strict constructionism to you, but you keep changing the discussion...going from "how is he conservative" to "what's the difference between a strict constructinist vs. a liberal constructionist?"

It seems awfully much like you are trying to avoid saying you were wrong.

You are also dancing around the question. What is the difference between him and a liberal constructionist?

"Liberal constructionist" is a contradiction in terms, AP. If Gonzales makes his decision based on the plain writing of the Constitution, then he's a strict constructionist - liberal vs. conservative labels do not apply. His personal views on any issue become unimportant, so long as he applies the law fairly and in an unbiased fashion.

So-called conservatives must understand that what we need in the federal judiciary are judges who rule based on the law - not those who make it themselves. That goes for judicial activism of the conservative stripe as well as liberal.

(Miss Marple, I included you here because the original post was to you. Happy Holidays, have a nice New Year.)