Lurch sticks the entire shoe store into his mouth.
- Thread starter ViRedd
- Start date
Doobie006
Well-Known Member
Vi you mentioned the judges Bush appointed.
I don't like Alito, I don't believe he's sympathetic to the Libertarian point of view. I'm pretty sure he would limit your liberty if he had the chance.
What is your reason for supporting him? (Just curious).
I don't mind J. Roberts. I think he leans to the right, but I think he's fair.
I don't like Alito, I don't believe he's sympathetic to the Libertarian point of view. I'm pretty sure he would limit your liberty if he had the chance.
What is your reason for supporting him? (Just curious).
I don't mind J. Roberts. I think he leans to the right, but I think he's fair.
ViRedd
New Member
To me, its not a left or right issue when it comes to supreme court justices. What's important is, will they hold the feet of the federal government to the fire of the Constitution? For so long now, we've had judges who go WAY beyond the intent of the founders by legislating from the bench. These folks are appointed, not elected. They have no business legislating from the bench as we have no recourse to correct their actions. The only recourse would be if Congress grows some balls and the American people come to the realization that judges are not the final arbitors. The final arbitors are the People and their elected representatives. In other words, Congress CAN, and SHOULD override some of the wacky judicial decisions.
Vi
medicineman
New Member
Man, We have 100% agreement on this issue. Like we should have thrown them out when they elected Bush!
Doobie006
Well-Known Member
So you should be happy that the Dems won congress, Vi.
With this balance of power the President will not be able to appoint any activist judges. Obviously he won't nominate a Far-left judge and congress won't approve a far-right. So they'll only agree on a fair and moderate judge that is apolitical. And that's healthy for the country.
With this balance of power the President will not be able to appoint any activist judges. Obviously he won't nominate a Far-left judge and congress won't approve a far-right. So they'll only agree on a fair and moderate judge that is apolitical. And that's healthy for the country.
ViRedd
New Member
Well, that's EXACTLY the problem as I see it in the Dems taking over. THEY are the ones who appoint activist judges. They shoot down constitutionalist judges. Remember Robert Bork? Remember the Clarence Thomas hearings? The Dems did a real disservice in "Borking" Robert Bork. He was the most qualified judge to be nominated to the USSC over the past century.
Vi
Vi
medicineman
New Member
Bush got his two right wing judges. I'm wondering why they didn't let him torture. It took the right wing congress to do that! BTW, qualifications are subjective. It depends on who is judging the judges qualifications. Most all judges that reach nomination are qualified in juris prudence!
ViRedd
New Member
Respecting the Constitution as written is "right wing?" I'd say its respecting liberty.
Vi
ViRedd
New Member
Sorry, Dank ...
Here is the makeup of the court when Gonzales v. Raich came down:
Chief Justice: William Rehnquist
Associate Justices: John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer
John Roberts took Rehnquist's place as Chief Justice on September 29, 2005.
Raich v Gonzales was decided on June 6, 2005 ... three months before Roberts was assigned to the court.
Vi
Here is the makeup of the court when Gonzales v. Raich came down:
Chief Justice: William Rehnquist
Associate Justices: John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer
John Roberts took Rehnquist's place as Chief Justice on September 29, 2005.
Raich v Gonzales was decided on June 6, 2005 ... three months before Roberts was assigned to the court.
Vi