Yeah buddy. Now the court should go back to where it belongs. Dub will appoint pragmatic judges. Not ones with the idea that they can interpret the law as they wish. The CONSTITUTION is the law of the land. End of story.

rickheel Wrote:Yeah buddy. Now the court should go back to where it belongs. Dub will appoint pragmatic judges. Not ones with the idea that they can interpret the law as they wish. The CONSTITUTION is the law of the land. End of story.

For our sake I hope you're right.

Good, this has been a long time in coming. Let's get some good justices. Young ones too.

I hope so, since they dont even bother making any pretense about following the constitution anymore. :D

rickheel Wrote:Yeah buddy. Now the court should go back to where it belongs. Dub will appoint pragmatic judges. Not ones with the idea that they can interpret the law as they wish. The CONSTITUTION is the law of the land. End of story.

Did I miss something? I thought those were just rumors.

There have been two different means by which the Constitution has been interpreted:

• The philosophy of natural and Divine law as introduced by the Founders
• The philosophy of legal relativism and positivism as introduced by the comtemporary courts
  [/list:u]
  
  Each philosophy has been stated by two Supreme Court Justices.
  
  Justice Felix Frankfurter stated, "The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it."
  - Graves v. New York ex rel. O'Keefe; 306 U.S. 466, 491-492 (1939)
  
  On the other hand, Chief Justice Evans Hughes stated, "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is."
  - Edwin Corwin, The Constitution and What It Means Today (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1920, 1937), xxiv.
  
  In 1985 the U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese, in a speech to the American Bar Association, summarized the primary difference between the two philosophies and the academic structures that supported each:
  
  

  Quote:Under the old system the question was how to read the Constitution; under the new approach, the question is whether to read the Constitution.

  
  Hopefully President Bush will appoint judges who interpret the Constitution properly. If he does, then we will begin to see a return to normalcy in the Supreme Court.
  
  But remember, it's also important to appoint the right kind of judges at the federal level. There are way too many left-wing extremist judges sitting on federal benches in this nation.

umbluegray Wrote:There are way too many left-wing extremist judges sitting on federal benches in this nation.

Aside from the 6th Circut (or whichever the one is for Cali and area), name some.

aerojad Wrote:

umbluegray Wrote:There are way too many left-wing extremist judges sitting on federal benches in this nation.

Aside from the 6th Circut (or whichever the one is for Cali and area), name some.

1. Ruth Bader Ginsberg
2. Stephen G. Breyer

...and here recently, Kennedy, Souter, and Stevens.

RebelKev Wrote:1. Ruth Bader Ginsberg
2. Stephen G. Breyer

Yet they got through your republican majority controlled senate. Maybe everybody is to blame here.

aerojad Wrote:

umbluegray Wrote:There are way too many left-wing extremist judges sitting on federal benches in this nation.

Aside from the 6th Circut (or whichever the one is for Cali and area), name some.

that's the 9th circuit.

the 6th is based in cincinnati and was at the center of the filibuster fight over nominees. it has had its own share of political strife:

<a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A26023-2003Jun6&notFound=true' target='_blank'>Judges Spar Over Affirmative Action</a>

aerojad Wrote:

umbluegray Wrote:There are way too many left-wing extremist judges sitting on federal benches in this nation.

Aside from the 6th Circut (or whichever the one is for Cali and area), name some.

The 9th circut in California is also the largest district. They will hear more cases, and some will be controversial by the percentages.

JTiger Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:1. Ruth Bader Ginsberg
2. Stephen G. Breyer

Yet they got through your republican majority controlled senate. Maybe everybody is to blame here.

Ginsberg was appointed in '93, Breyer in '94.

Couldn't the republicans have filibustered?

JTiger Wrote:Couldn't the republicans have filibustered?

now you're beginning to understand.

<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/13/rehnquist.health/index.html' target='_blank'>Hospital?</a>

If he dies or resigns, the dems have a real problem here. They can make a big deal and block one person for O'Connors old spot, but to try to stop two would look bad in the arean of public perception. There was a good radio story on NPR about this last week. At least we'll all have something to talk about his summer with these judge nominations. I'm guessing Ashcroft will be nominated. Eventhough the administration put the choker leash on him for being on TV too much after 9/11 with the shoe bomber guy.

THAT would make them look bad in the public's eye? :snore:

RebelKev Wrote:

JTiger Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:1. Ruth Bader Ginsberg
2. Stephen G. Breyer

Yet they got through your republican majority controlled senate. Maybe everybody is to blame here.

Ginsberg was appointed in '93, Breyer in '94.

Orrin Hatch suggested those names to President Clinton. Clinton hadn't even considered Ginsburg until Hatch suggested her during a consulation with several Senators.