"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.)
So the question is : How does he view the Amendments. Does he thing the 2nd Amendment guarantees citizens the right to own a gun and carry that gun on their person? Don't you think we should find out before we call his a "conservative"?
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.
How should we view judges who will let previous, activist bench legislation (a redundancy, I know) stand, because it is "settled law?"
Is it "activist" to throw out activist ruliings?
