Rich in Ohio Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 The future of the United States of America will greatly be set into motion in what will undoubtedly be one of the most important battles in recent times. Of course I am speaking about the nuclear war that is set to take place as GWB nominates not only one but two Supreme Court Justices. Not to mention that if all goes well, and some of the reports are true then he could also very well get the oppertunity to name a 3rd, which would make his presidency one of the the most important in the past 100 years. Consider the fact that he will more then liekly place at least two 50 year old (or so) conservative judges on the bench to go along with Scalia, and Thomas who are reletively young as SCJ go. That will be 4 young minds who are thinking correctly and if GWB is able to add that 5th good young judge, the tabel will be set for normal judicial action in our country for the next quarter of a century. Lets hope that Stevens see the light and steps away, as rumored. Or we would gladly replace Ginsburg with another woman justice perhaps in the mold of Mrs. Brown.
N.Y. Orangeman Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 The future of the United States of America will greatly be set into motion in what will undoubtedly be one of the most important battles in recent times. Of course I am speaking about the nuclear war that is set to take place as GWB nominates not only one but two Supreme Court Justices. Not to mention that if all goes well, and some of the reports are true then he could also very well get the oppertunity to name a 3rd, which would make his presidency one of the the most important in the past 100 years. Consider the fact that he will more then liekly place at least two 50 year old (or so) conservative judges on the bench to go along with Scalia, and Thomas who are reletively young as SCJ go. That will be 4 young minds who are thinking correctly and if GWB is able to add that 5th good young judge, the tabel will be set for normal judicial action in our country for the next quarter of a century. Lets hope that Stevens see the light and steps away, as rumored. Or we would gladly replace Ginsburg with another woman justice perhaps in the mold of Mrs. Brown. 381473[/snapback] "Normal judicial action?" That's an interesting phrase..
MattyT Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 "Normal judicial action?" That's an interesting phrase.. 381482[/snapback] Almost as interesting as "minds who are thinking correctly."
Rich in Ohio Posted July 14, 2005 Author Posted July 14, 2005 Almost as interesting as "minds who are thinking correctly." 381488[/snapback] yes minds that are thinking correctly.......as opposed to knuckeheads who try to legislate from the bench.
MattyT Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 yes minds that are thinking correctly.......as opposed to knuckeheads who try to legislate from the bench. 381569[/snapback] Why are you pulling so hard for conservative candidates if their job is to interpret rather than legislate? If the system works as you are proposing, then it shouldn't matter as long as the most qualified judges are appointed. Unless... its okay for judges to legislate if it supports your personal beliefs. I'm sure that's not it though.
N.Y. Orangeman Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 yes minds that are thinking correctly.......as opposed to knuckeheads who try to legislate from the bench. 381569[/snapback] There are very few people, Republican/Democrat, Conservative/Liberal who approve of legislating from the bench. That being said, I'm glad many of our courts and the SC are willing to knock down legislation that is unconstitutional. What most partisans fail to realize is that the conservative wing of the court has knocked down more legislation of late than the liberal wing has. I guess being an "activist" isn't necessarily at odds with being a conservative.
Cripes Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 yes minds that are thinking correctly.......as opposed to knuckeheads who try to legislate from the bench. 381569[/snapback] Like Clarence Thomas, who voted to overturn the will and intent of Congress in 65.63 percent of cases involving constitutional review, choosing instead to mandate his own personal viewpoint into the law of the land? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/6/14178/92515 No other current Supreme Court justice has been so "activist."
N.Y. Orangeman Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 Like Clarence Thomas, who voted to overturn the will and intent of Congress in 65.63 percent of cases involving constitutional review, choosing instead to mandate his own personal viewpoint into the law of the land? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/6/14178/92515 No other current Supreme Court justice has been so "activist." 381638[/snapback] Hmmm...if these figures hold water, it does pose some problems for those Conservatives throwing around the term "activist."
Alaska Darin Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 That "study" is utter crap and anyone with half a clue actually read that piece should have instantly picked up on that.
Rich in Ohio Posted July 14, 2005 Author Posted July 14, 2005 Why are you pulling so hard for conservative candidates if their job is to interpret rather than legislate? If the system works as you are proposing, then it shouldn't matter as long as the most qualified judges are appointed. Unless... its okay for judges to legislate if it supports your personal beliefs. I'm sure that's not it though. 381587[/snapback] Please the answer to the question is so obvious, I feel rather embarassed having to explain it toyou. But I will: You are correct the issue should be qualified judges. Moreover they should be judges who are not interested in legislating from the bench. The reason that I am (in your words..pulling so hard) for conservative judges is because they get that. They do have the tendancy to try to create things that are not there...they instead concentrate on what is there. Simple as that. The liberal leaning judges (including the one that just retired) have seemingly little respect for what is, and more interest on what they think it should be. That is a reciepe for the freak socialist state that we were heading towards.
Adam Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 I am not concerned- everything goes in cycles, and if something I don't like happens, it will change within my lifetime. Majority rules- thats how things work, we can't always be happy with every decision.
Rich in Ohio Posted July 14, 2005 Author Posted July 14, 2005 That "study" is utter crap and anyone with half a clue actually read that piece should have instantly picked up on that. 381661[/snapback] unfortunately not many on here have half a clue. At least not half a clue that is functioning all at the same time. I mean, they may actually have half of a clue...but maybe only 1/3 of the half is fucntioning at any one time. At other times maybe 1/8 of the remaining 2/3rds of a clue may be working and so on, and so on.
MattyT Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 Simple as that. 381663[/snapback] It's only simple if you choose to look at it with a simpleton's point of view.
CoachChuckDickerson Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 I am not concerned- everything goes in cycles, and if something I don't like happens, it will change within my lifetime. Majority rules- thats how things work...381667[/snapback] Al Gore would probably disagree with that statement.
Alaska Darin Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 Al Gore would probably disagree with that statement. 381688[/snapback] Why is that?
N.Y. Orangeman Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 unfortunately not many on here have half a clue. At least not half a clue that is functioning all at the same time. I mean, they may actually have half of a clue...but maybe only 1/3 of the half is fucntioning at any one time. At other times maybe 1/8 of the remaining 2/3rds of a clue may be working and so on, and so on. 381670[/snapback] Excuse me, but I am a member of a Bar, just as you are. Conservatives don't have a monopoly on judicial theory.
CoachChuckDickerson Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 Why is that? 381690[/snapback] because the folks who voted for Nader should be forced to live on Long Island in an Escape from New York type scenario. If you count them, then technically Al only received a plurality.
Mickey Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 There are very few people, Republican/Democrat, Conservative/Liberal who approve of legislating from the bench. That being said, I'm glad many of our courts and the SC are willing to knock down legislation that is unconstitutional. What most partisans fail to realize is that the conservative wing of the court has knocked down more legislation of late than the liberal wing has. I guess being an "activist" isn't necessarily at odds with being a conservative. 381608[/snapback] To anyone who has studied constitutional law, the phrase "legislating from the bench" is a joke, a meaningless political catch phrase used to attract the attention of folks like Richio. It gives them a one line justification that is easy to remember and can be repeated ad nauseum. Actually thinking through a difficult issue that challenges even the best legal minds, conservative and liberals alike, would be waaaay to taxing and won't fit on a placard. Of course, that is not to even begin to point out the hypocrisy of being all for "legislating from the bench" when it suits your own politics such as in the Schiavo shame-a-thon or the Supremes telling Florida to shove its election laws up a shark's a$$. To be fair, I am sure we will hear the same from the other side along the lines of Judge so and so being opposed to civil liberties or more likely, an "ideologue". It is why you end up with intellectual lightweights on the Supreme Court like Thomas and to some, Souter. Neither side wants the best brain on the court, they want someone whose votes on any given case can be reliably predicted. Both sides will say there should be no litmus test but that is exactly what they both want, a litmus test on abortion. This is not about legislating from the bench, it is not about the constitution. It is about abortion and that is all there is to it.
N.Y. Orangeman Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 It is why you end up with intellectual lightweights on the Supreme Court like Thomas and to some, Souter. Neither side wants the best brain on the court, they want someone whose votes on any given case can be reliably predicted. 381736[/snapback] I couldn't agree with you more. We should be so luck to have a court with Scalia (who, while I don't agree with him, is brilliant) in one corner, Sunstein in another, and Posner floating out there in space .
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 To anyone who has studied constitutional law, the phrase "legislating from the bench" is a joke, a meaningless political catch phrase used to attract the attention of folks like Richio. It gives them a one line justification that is easy to remember and can be repeated ad nauseum. Actually thinking through a difficult issue that challenges even the best legal minds, conservative and liberals alike, would be waaaay to taxing and won't fit on a placard. Of course, that is not to even begin to point out the hypocrisy of being all for "legislating from the bench" when it suits your own politics such as in the Schiavo shame-a-thon or the Supremes telling Florida to shove its election laws up a shark's a$$. To be fair, I am sure we will hear the same from the other side along the lines of Judge so and so being opposed to civil liberties or more likely, an "ideologue". It is why you end up with intellectual lightweights on the Supreme Court like Thomas and to some, Souter. Neither side wants the best brain on the court, they want someone whose votes on any given case can be reliably predicted. Both sides will say there should be no litmus test but that is exactly what they both want, a litmus test on abortion. This is not about legislating from the bench, it is not about the constitution. It is about abortion and that is all there is to it. 381736[/snapback] To be fair, given that Florida couldn't even define what a vote was, their election laws needed to be shoved up a shark's ass. Other than that...nice post. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why "activist judges" who "legislate from the bench" only do so against Republicans and not Democrats. I imagine I'll be waiting a LONG time for that explanation...
Recommended Posts