Pindar's SCOTUS picks

Some of my friends who work in Washington have been telling me Rehnquist is expected to announce his stepping down after the July Fourth Holiday. This means two of a possible Bush Supreme Court Three-fer will be in the works. Below is a simple list of who I think the strongest contenders for the seats are. It includes a brief on each.

Top Contenders:


J. Michael Luttig


J. Michael Luttig, 51, has been a favorite in conservative legal circles for decades, going back to his clerkship for then-Judge Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 1982-83.


A graduate of Washington and Lee University and the University of Virginia law school, Luttig also clerked for Chief Justice Warren E. Burger in 1983-84, practiced law in the private sector from 1985-1989, and then served in a variety of Justice Department positions during the first Bush administration, where his duties included helping current Justices Clarence Thomas and David H. Souter win Senate confirmation.

President George H.W. Bush appointed him to the Richmond-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in 1991, when Luttig was just 37 years old. Ever since, he has been spoken of as a likely choice for the Supreme Court should a Republican president have a chance to name him. His many supporters on the right, including ex-law clerks sprinkled throughout the Bush administration, think now is Luttig's time.

This has sometimes led him to clash with other members of the 4th Circuit, including fellow conservative J. Harvie Wilkinson, also thought of as a Supreme Court contender. In 2000, he dissented from a ruling by Wilkinson that upheld a Fish and Wildlife Service regulation limiting the killing of endangered wolves on private land. He also disagreed with Wilkinson in 2003, when he wrote a dissenting opinion that supported the Bush administration's position that it could designate and detain "enemy combatants" with little judicial scrutiny.

In 1998, he upheld Virginia's ban on the procedure known as a partial birth abortion -- but agreed to let it be struck down after the Supreme Court struck down a similar Nebraska law in 2000.

-- Charles Lane



John G. Roberts



John G. Roberts, 50, has long been considered one of the Republicans' heavyweights amid the largely Democratic Washington legal establishment. Roberts was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 2003 by President George W. Bush. (He was also nominated by the first President Bush, but never received a Senate vote). Previously, he practiced law at D.C.'s Hogan & Hartson from 1986-1989 and 1993-2003. Between 1989 and 1993, he was the Principal Deputy Solicitor General in the first Bush administration, helping formulate the administration's position in Supreme Court cases. During the Reagan administration, he served as an aide to Attorney General William French Smith from 1981-1982 and as a an aide to White House Counsel Fred Fielding from 1982-1986.


With impeccable credentials -- Roberts attended Harvard College and Harvard Law School, clerked for Justice William H. Rehnquist on the Supreme Court and has argued frequently before the court -- the question marks about Roberts have always been ideological. While his Republican party loyalties are undoubted, earning him the opposition of liberal advocacy groups, he is not a "movement conservative," and some on the party's right-wing doubt his commitment to their cause. His paper record is thin: as Deputy Solicitor General in 1990, he argued in favor of a government regulation that banned abortion-related counseling by federally-funded family planning programs. A line in his brief noted the Bush administration's belief that Roe v. Wade should be overruled.

As a judge on the D.C. Circuit, Roberts voted with two colleagues to uphold the arrest and detention of a twelve-year old girl for eating french fries on the Metro train, though his opinion noted that "[n]o one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation." In another case, Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion that suggested Congress might lack the power under the Constitution's Commerce Clause to regulate the treatment of a certain species of wildlife.

-- Charles Lane


Smaller chance



Emilio M. Garza



Emilio M. Garza, 57, is a judge for U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and has been on the short list for a Supreme Court nomination before.

Justice Department officials interviewed Garza in 1991, when he was among a handful of candidates being considered by President George H. W. Bush to succeed Justice Thurgood Marshall. But Garza then had only three years of experience on the federal bench and his views on many issues were unknown. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas instead.


Garza, who will turn 58 in August, would make history as the first Hispanic ever nominated to the high court.

The former Marine captain earned bachelor's and master's degrees from the University of Notre Dame and graduated from the University of Texas School of Law. He practiced law in his native San Antonio for 11 years and served as a state district judge for a year before President Reagan nominated him to the U.S. District Court in 1988. Three years later Bush elevated him to the 5th Circuit.

Since then Garza has developed a reliably conservative judicial record that includes criticism of the Roe V. Wade abortion decision of 1973. In 1997, Garza sided with the majority in upholding a lower court decision that struck down parts of a Louisiana law requiring parents to be notified when a minor child seeks an abortion. In his concurring opinion, however, he expressed doubts about whether Roe v. Wade was well-grounded in the Constitution.

"In the absence of governing constitutional text, I believe that ontological issues such as abortion are more properly decided in the political and legislative arenas," Garza wrote. ". . . . It is unclear to me that the [Supreme] Court itself still believes that abortion is a 'fundamental right' under the Fourteenth Amendment. . . ."

-Christopher Lee



Michael W. McConnell


Michael W. McConnell, 50, has been a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, based in Denver, since his appointment by President Bush in 2002.


Before then, he was mostly a legal academic, having served as a law professor at the University of Chicago from 1985-1996 and subsequently at the University of Utah.

McConnell's good standing with the legal professoriate helped him immeasurably during the confirmation process; more than 300 of his fellow professors, including many liberals, endorsed him for the bench.

An eclectic thinker who served both as a law clerk for the liberal icon Justice William Brennan and as an official in the Reagan administration, McConnell has expressed his opinions on a wide range of subjects, including a Wall Street Journal op-ed in December 2000 in which he expressed doubts about the legal reasoning of the Supreme Court's Bush v. Gore decision.

But his outspoken disagreement with Roe v. Wade has earned him the condemnation of liberal advocacy groups (though at his confirmation hearing he called it "settled law.") Conservatives like his writings favoring government "neutrality" toward religion.

As a judge, McConnell has upheld Congress's power to criminalize the possession of homemade child pornography; in a case soon to be reviewed by the court, he voted to prohibit enforcement of federal anti-drug laws against people who consume hallucinogenic tea as part of a religious ritual.

-- Charles Lane




Larry D. Thompson


Larry D. Thompson, 59, is a senior vice president and general counsel for PepsiCo.

He was the deputy Attorney General--the No. 2 person at the Justice Department--for much of President Bush's first term.


During his tenure at Justice, he had daily involvement in the war on terror and headed the corporate crime task force that pursued prosecutions against Enron Corp., Worldcom Inc. and HealthSouth Corp.

He was one of the highest-ranking African Americans in the Bush administration and if appointed to the court, would be the third African American justice.

Thompson is a longtime acquaintance of Justice Thomas and was a member of the legal team that assisted Thomas during his confirmation hearings in 1991.

Around the same time, Thompson angered some civil rights groups when he wrote that certain black leaders "stressed . . . black people as victims" and ignored problems like their "lack of respect for the law, kids having children too soon and fathers who were not taking their responsibility seriously."

He is a graduate of the University of Michigan Law School, served as a U.S. Attorney in Georgia and practiced at the Atlanta firm of King & Spalding.

--Darryl Fears




Wild Cards


Janice Rogers Brown


Janice Rogers Brown, 56, was confirmed last month to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. For nine years before that, she was a California Supreme Court justice.

Brown was born in Greenville, Ala., and educated at California State University at Sacramento and the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law. She is a self-described conservative who as a young single mother once called herself so leftist as to be almost Maoist. She was legal affairs secretary for California Gov. Pete Wilson (R) before joining the California Court of Appeals in 1994.

As a judge, she has written sharp opinions that opposed affirmative action, that supported a state law requiring girls younger than 18 to notify their parents before getting an abortion, and that advocated using stun guns in a courtroom to control an unruly defendant. She has strongly supported property rights and describes herself as someone who looks to the intent of the framers of the Constitution when making decisions. Some have criticized her for writing dissents and opinions that personally attack other justices.

Brown has attracted as much attention for her speeches as for her legal decisions. In recent years, she has described New Deal legal precedents as "the triumph of our socialist revolution," and two months ago, she told a Connecticut group of Catholic legal professionals that "there seems to have been no time since the Civil War that this country was so bitterly divided." She also said that "these are perilous times for people of faith" and that there's a social cost to pay "if you are a person of faith who stands up for what you believe in and say those things out loud."

Brown grew up in the segregated South, where her family refused to enter restaurants or theaters with separate entrances for black customers. Before moving to Washington, she lived in a gated community in the foothills of the Sierra Nevadas.

-- Marc Kaufman



Alberto R. Gonzales


Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, 49, has less time on the bench than the other likely Supreme Court candidates but has one crucial advantage: the close friendship of President Bush.


Gonzales grew up as the son of impoverished Mexican immigrants and went on to graduate from Harvard University law school. Bush, then the governor of Texas, hired him as his general counsel and later appointed him to the Texas Supreme Court. Bush brought Gonzales to Washington as his White House counsel in 2001.

The Senate narrowly approved Gonzales as attorney general in February after he faced sharp criticism from Democrats over the role he played in approving controversial detention and antiterrorism policies.

Yet legal experts say that the strongest opposition to Gonzales as a Supreme Court candidate would likely come from the right, due primarily to positions he has taken on issues like abortion and affirmative action.

While on the bench in Texas, Gonzales sided with a majority in a 2000 case allowing an unidentified 17-year-old girl to obtain an abortion without notifying her parents, finding that she qualified for an exception to that state's parental notification law. In a concurring opinion, Gonzales said that to side with dissenters in the case would amount to "an unconscionable act of judicial activism."

Gonzales also testified at his attorney general confirmation hearing earlier this year that he recognized the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion as "the law of the land."

Advisors close to the White House have said that Bush likes the idea that Gonzales would be the first Hispanic justice. (Benjamin Nathan Cardozo, a justice in the 1930s, was of Portuguese and Jewish descent.)

-- Dan Eggen


The night of the long knives is come. Citizens will rise up against the barbarian defamers of the Republic and drive them from their secure posts and high places. The citizens voice will be heard again and the law will be a reflection of that voice.



Potestas Democraticorum delenda est!

(The power of the Democratic Party must be destroyed)

A very important decision.. we cant afford any that will change sides.

Well all the Democrats have been on saying they want another justice like Oconner . I dont see any of these fitting that bill ~D This I believe was the most important reason that people re elected Bush for. This may well be the democrats last stand. Since when are the losers to set the agenda or tell the president who to nominate ? Let them try to obstruct these people.

I do not see the filibuster working or any other obstacle getting in the way. The traitorous seven will not be able to stand against their GOP constituencies cries for justice.

A fellow I know was in on a conference call with various NOW bigwigs. They were in shear terror.

I don't think Bush will wavier. One does not compromise with the plague. The Demos must be crushed. :charge:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Well all the Democrats have been on saying they want another justice like Oconner . I dont see any of these fitting that bill ~D This I believe was the most important reason that people re elected Bush for. This may well be the democrats last stand. Since when are the losers to set the agenda or tell the president who to nominate ? Let them try to obstruct these people.

---

Since when do the losers set the agenda.... Hmmm... The republicians voted down some of Clinton's nominies ~;)

Quote:

---

Since when do the losers set the agenda.... Hmmm... The republicians voted down some of Clinton's nominies

---

Doesnt it take a majority to vote something down? Voting on these people is exactly what the democrats dont want as they know they would be confirmed . Although Im not a republican I certainly can be classified as a conservative. ~;)

Quote:

---

A fellow I know was in on a conference call with various NOW bigwigs. They were in shear terror.

---

The fevered panic of such people warms my heart.

Quote:

---

we cant afford any that will change sides.

---

*Pulls out a long knife, whilst looking at Kennedy.*

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Doesnt it take a majority to vote something down? Voting on these people is exactly what the democrats dont want as they know they would be confirmed . Although Im not a republican I certainly can be classified as a conservative. ~;)

---

My point is the republicans are saying that congress isnt really suposed disagree with the presidents nominies. Sure in Clintons time the republicans were able to vote down the nominies, but they were still ther losers in the presidential race. The democrats are simply allowing their voice to be heard the only way they can.

Quote:

---

My point is the republicans are saying that congress isnt really suposed disagree with the presidents nominies. Sure in Clintons time the republicans were able to vote down the nominies, but they were still ther losers in the presidential race. The democrats are simply allowing their voice to be heard the only way they can.

---

The debate is whether a minority [the Democrats in this case] can stop the majority in Congress. It isn't about the President, it is about Congress!

Out of shear curiosity, what nominations made by Clinton were voted down by Republicans?

Quote:

---

My point is the republicans are saying that congress isnt really suposed disagree with the presidents nominies

---

YTou have it all wrong. All the republican are asking for is what the constitution says. The choice of picking these judges is left solely to the president. It then goes to the congresss for an up or down vote. The democrats certainly have the right to vote anyway they please but they dont want it to caome to a vote because once more they will loose. They can dissagree all they like.

Quote:

---

Sure in Clintons time the republicans were able to vote down the nominies, but they were still ther losers in the presidential race.

---

Yes but they won the congress. Again the president recomends and the congress confirms. Thats the check and balance in this case. Maybe you havent noticed but the republicans won the presidency, the House and the Senate this time around.

Quote:

---

The democrats are simply allowing their voice to be heard the only way they can.

---

No there trying to change the way things are done. Let them complain all they like. Their losers and this is going to cost them even more if the continue their policy of obstruction.

What we really need is for one of these punks to retire: Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer. These Lib jackoffs stole our rights to private property! Damn them to hell forever!

They probably won't do so while a Repubilcan is President. Tha's why the next election is the most critical! We MUST force at least one of these libs out! They are destroying America, one crushing decision after another.

Quote:

---

YTou have it all wrong. All the republican are asking for is what the constitution says. The choice of picking these judges is left solely to the president. It then goes to the congresss for an up or down vote. The democrats certainly have the right to vote anyway they please but they dont want it to caome to a vote because once more they will loose. They can dissagree all they like.

---

I dont have it wrong. I know this is not what you and others are saying, but in the newspaper there was an article about how some republicans thought that congress was just supposed to give consent(meaning no opposition).

Quote:

---

Yes but they won the congress. Again the president recomends and the congress confirms. Thats the check and balance in this case. Maybe you havent noticed but the republicans won the presidency, the House and the Senate this time around.

---

I noticed i thought you meant that they should listen to pres. like some others, my bad. ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

No there trying to change the way things are done. Let them complain all they like. Their losers and this is going to cost them even more if the continue their policy of obstruction.

---

They arent changing anything, filibuster has been around for a very long time. Of course the democrats are going to use the only tools availableto them.

This whole subject makes me kind of mad, cause the judges are supposed to be bi-partasian, and these judges certainly are not!

Quote:

---

This whole subject makes me kind of mad, cause the judges are supposed to be bi-partasian, and these judges certainly are not!

---

It's difficult to find bi-partisan human beings, nevermind judges.

Quote:

---

What we really need is for one of these punks to retire: Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer. These Lib jackoffs stole our rights to private property! Damn them to hell forever!

They probably won't do so while a Repubilcan is President. Tha's why the next election is the most critical! We MUST force at least one of these libs out! They are destroying America, one crushing decision after another.

---

Amen, brother! Amen! ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

I dont have it wrong. I know this is not what you and others are saying, but in the newspaper there was an article about how some republicans thought that congress was just supposed to give consent(meaning no opposition).

---

You missunderstood. Their saying its the job of the congress to give consent, or deny it but not to have any choice in who he is to select. Do you really think their saying its the job of congress to rubber stamp whoever he appoints?

Quote:

---

They arent changing anything, filibuster has been around for a very long time. Of course the democrats are going to use the only tools availableto them.

---

Yes they are Fillibusters have never been used to stop a vote on a federal court judge. Again the republicans if forced to can take this tool away.

Quote:

---

This whole subject makes me kind of mad, cause the judges are supposed to be bi-partasian, and these judges certainly are not!

---

Where do you get that from. Their not supposed to be partisan at all. Thats the problem.Their just supposed to rule on law accordding to the constitution and not what they believe. Politics isnt even supposed to enter into their decisions. Im afraid you dont have a leg to stand on here and neither do they. Their only hope now is that in the next few years republicans will screw things up more than they did during their 50 year run to ruination.

Quote:

---

Where do you get that from. Their not supposed to be partisan at all. Thats the problem.Their just supposed to rule on law accordding to the constitution and not what they believe. Politics isnt even supposed to enter into their decisions. Im afraid you dont have a leg to stand on here and neither do they. Their only hope now is that in the next few years republicans will screw things up more than they did during their 50 year run to ruination.

---

Thats what i meant, i chose the wrong word, thats why i dont think the should be chosen by a president as any president is obviusly going to pick a judge who fits his beliefs.


I know filibuster has never been used for disapproving judges, but i dont see why it isnt fair game. The thing that is angering the republicans is that they dont have enough people to get rid of filibuster as some republicans agree with the democrats on this issue. At least that was the situation last time i checked.

Does anyone else get giddy at the thought of Scalia and Breyer taking the gloves off?

Despite being liberal, I'd like to see Breyer get a spot.

Quote:

---

The thing that is angering the republicans is that they dont have enough people to get rid of filibuster as some republicans agree with the democrats on this issue

---

If push came to shove they would. But it wont come even to that as the moderates on both dises agreed not to filibuster unless theres extreme appointees. You cna hardly call any of these extreme.

Quote:

---

thats why i dont think the should be chosen by a president as any president is obviusly going to pick a judge who fits his beliefs.

---

So how do you pick them then? ~:confused: Look the president can only pick a candidate he cant mandate congress approve him. Jeez the republicans even let a judge pass who was a head ACLU lawyer. Bush is picking judges solely on their ability to rule accordding to the constitution.

This topic is pissing me off.

Just thinking about "liberal interpretation" is enough to get your blood going.

Strict interpretation should be the only interpretation. Otherwise, a lib can essentially assign any wacked out idea to the constitution. "The framers meant this... blah blah blah" motherfreakin liberals!
Arrghhhggyyargghhhhggrrrr!!!!!!!!!!

Damn. This demands a smiley and I hate smileys.

:rifle:
:rifle:
:rifle:
:rifle:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

This topic is pissing me off.

Just thinking about "liberal interpretation" is enough to get your blood going.

Strict interpretation should be the only interpretation. Otherwise, a lib can essentially assign any wacked out idea to the constitution. "The framers meant this... blah blah blah" motherfreakin liberals!
Arrghhhggyyargghhhhggrrrr!!!!!!!!!!

Damn. This demands a smiley and I hate smileys.

:rifle:
:rifle:
:rifle:
:rifle:

---

Are you saying you dont like loose interpretations?

Im glad our ancestors werent like that. Jefferson knew the constitution didnt give him the power to buy the lousiania purchase, but he did any way cause he knew it was good for the country. If he hadnt been liberal then who knows how many countries would have formed.

I personally consider myself a neutral, meaning i hate the polticial parties and agree with many conservative beliefs. But, by the standards of many republicans, like yourself, that means i am a "motherfreakin liberal"/commi/traitor. I personally believe that this concept of "my why or the highway is completly unacceptable.

Hmmm.. maybe we should just have ONE politicial party and become a dictatorship ~;)

Gawian your probably right on all those last points, but i guess the thing that has REALLY got me mad about this whole thing is the republicans had a rally in a church, saying that the democrats were attacking men of god. That rally and many of the points made there were completly unacceptable.

Quote:

---

but i guess the thing that has REALLY got me mad about this whole thing is the republicans had a rally in a church, saying that the democrats were attacking men of god. That rally and many of the points made there were completly unacceptable.

---

You do realise how hypocritcal this is dont you? Democrats always campaihn in black churches and have had ads like if you vote for a repbulican black churches will burn. Youve really touched a sore spot with me here.

Quote:

---

But, by the standards of many republicans, like yourself, that means i am a "motherfreakin liberal"/commi/traitor

---

Did he call you that?

I dont think democrats should have rally's in black churches either and you are 100% right about that.


Well he did say motherfrikin liberal, panzer has called democrats traitors as have you(i believe) and even if it was a joke it was still said. I have been called a commi by other republicans so i though i would add it in there for good measure. And if you read his post you will see that he does hate liberals, at least their ideas. So i continue with my point that if people didnt have use the expressed and implied cause then our country certainly wouldnt be what it is today.

It really pisses me off when republicans seem to look down/ hate others who don share their opinion. Sure some democrats do it to, but that is also wrong. As i have said i have some different views than republicans, but i still value their opinions, except when they claim that it is the RIGHT way and people who disagree are just stupid or whatever.

Quote:

---

panzer has called democrats traitors as have you(i believe)

---

I have never called democrats traitors as a group though I may have singled some out. There are republicans Ive called traitors also. Their not limited to either party.

Quote:

---

I have been called a commi by other republicans so i though i would add it in there for good measure.

---

Do you think thats a wise debating tactic because as you can see someone here is bound to jump on your every little mis-statement or mistake.

Quote:

---

And if you read his post you will see that he does hate liberals, at least their ideas.

---

So do I. Thats far different from hating them as people.

Quote:

---

So i continue with my point that if people didnt have use the expressed and implied cause then our country certainly wouldnt be what it is today.

---

~:confused:

Quote:

---

I have never called democrats traitors as a group though I may have singled some out. There are republicans Ive called traitors also. Their not limited to either party.

---

I remember the iran thread, where i said a republican coming to office is a step back, then panzer said that is better than being a traitor, then i asked how are dems. traitors and i could have sworn that you said some little remark, but whatever it doesnt really matter...

Quote:

---

Do you think thats a wise debating tactic because as you can see someone here is bound to jump on your every little mis-statement or mistake.

---

I didnt see that as a mistake i never said he called me that.

Quote:

---

So do I. Thats far different from hating them as people.

---

Saying motherfreakin Liberal seems to be hating the people to me, but i gave him the benifit of the doubt

Quote:

---

~:confused:

---

If jefferson hadnt been a liberal then he couldnt have bought the lousiania purchase. Nothing about power to buy land in the constitution.

If women hadnt been liberal and more importantly congressmen, how could they have legally given them the right to vote.

In both of these examples, people did things that werent really in the constitution to do, but it lead to a greater good, because they were able to look beyond the written powers.

This is really the whole point as Divinus seems to want us to go by the constitution line by line.

Quote:

---

then i asked how are dems. traitors and i could have sworn that you said some little remark, but whatever it doesnt really matter...

---

Yes I said where should I begin. But I meant if you wanted specifics Id give you their names and why I say so. It was also done a bit tounge in cheek.

Quote:

---

I didnt see that as a mistake i never said he called me that.

---

What was this? Who is yourself?

Quote:

---

But, by the standards of many republicans, like yourself, that means i am a "motherfreakin liberal"/commi/traitor.

---

Quote:

---

Saying motherfreakin Liberal seems to be hating the people to me, but i gave him the benifit of the doubt

---

He may have been a bit to verbose ~D

Quote:

---

If jefferson hadnt been a liberal then he couldnt have bought the lousiania purchase. Nothing about power to buy land in the constitution.

---

Jefferson was no liberal. The constitution gives the government the power to name treaties. I believe most of these land purchases come under that heading.

Quote:

---

If women hadnt been liberal and more importantly congressmen, how could they have legally given them the right to vote.

---

Women were liberal now ? All of them? Its because its clearly unconstitutional to deny them that right. Do you think conservatives oppose womens rights?

Quote:

---

In both of these examples, people did things that werent really in the constitution to do, but it lead to a greater good, because they were able to look beyond the written powers.

---

No both of these things are mentioned or can easily be infered from an understanding of the constitution. Abortion however has no standing based on the constitution.

Quote:

---

This is really the whole point as Divinus seems to want us to go by the constitution line by line.

---

And thats how it should be. Womens sufferage was done by popular vote and amending the constitution as the founding fathers wanted not by some activist judge granting it to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

And thats how it should be. Womens sufferage was done by popular vote and amending the constitution as the founding fathers wanted not by some activist judge granting it to them.

---

Exactly. How many times must we keep saying this? Judges should stick to the Constitution- not international consensus, not popular thinking, not even their own beliefs.... We have legislatures that we elect for these things- we don't need an unelected oligarchy doing it.

Quote:

---

Yes I said where should I begin. But I meant if you wanted specifics Id give you their names and why I say so. It was also done a bit tounge in cheek.

---

I knew it was done in humor, but it was still done. ~:)

Quote:

---

What was this? Who is yourself?

---

you got at me for adding the commi thing, but i thought is was relevant

Quote:

---

He may have been a bit to verbose ~D

---

As i say again, i gave him the benefit of the doubt.. ~;)

Quote:

---

Jefferson was no liberal. The constitution gives the government the power to name treaties. I believe most of these land purchases come under that heading.

---

actual he was one of the founding fathers of what would become the democratic party ~;) . But, anyways i never said he was a liberial. He was a big fan of the elastic clause as hamilton was opposed to it. In the example he himself had doubts about buying land cause it is hardly a treaty. But as a fan of the elastic clause he felt it was necesary and proper(more proper than necesary ~:) ) to buy the land so he did.

Quote:

---

Women were liberal now ? All of them? Its because its clearly unconstitutional to deny them that right. Do you think conservatives oppose womens rights?

---

No, not all women were liberal, nor are conservatives against women rights, but this is an example of society having a liberal view of the constitution to do a common good. This example is a little weak, but the first one fits perfectly.

Quote:

---

Abortion however has no standing based on the constitution.

---

Who said anything about abortion, i am against abortion too. ~:)

Quote:

---

actual he was one of the founding fathers of what would become the democratic party

---

The democrats used to be the conservative party.

Quote:

---

No, not all women were liberal, nor are conservatives against women rights, but this is an example of society having a liberal view of the constitution to do a common good.

---

How is it a liberal view of the constitution? ~:confused:

Quote:

---

Who said anything about abortion, i am against abortion too

---

Im just trying to illustrate true judicial activism. You have to have a good imagination to find anything on abortion in the constitution. This is not so of giving women the right to vote.

Just to clarify - I do not consider terms like "motherfreakin liberals/conservatives" to be acceptable in the Backroom

Thanks for your attention :bow:

Quote:

---

The democrats used to be the conservative party.

---

Actually the parties didnt use to be liberal/conservative. The democrats were focused on state rights where as the federalists were about a stronger centrlal government. I dont know what the whigs wanted ~:confused:.

Anyways the point is jefferson was a strong supporter of a "loose" interpretation of the constitution, where as his opponet hamilton was strongly against it. This "loose" interpretation, is the same thing that made
divinus say motherfreaking liberals.

Quote:

---

How is it a liberal view of the constitution? ~:confused:

---

bad example i guess ~:)

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this but Bush has a couple of constituencies to consider here. For the first time in history, the National Association of Manufacturers has started tracking potential judicial nominees. There was a good article in the WSJ this week about this. The article uses Geier v. American Honda Motor Co. to illustrate its point.

Quote:

---

In that 2000 case, Alexis Geier sued the auto maker over injuries suffered in an accident, arguing that the company should have installed airbags, even though federal regulators didn't require them at the time her car had been made. The high court sided with Honda, but only barely, in a 5-4 split. The votes didn't follow stereotypical ideological lines. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist sided with a majority that flexed federal muscle to protect a big corporation. Fellow conservative Clarence Thomas voted with a minority defending states rights -- in this case, the authority of state courts. If President Bush were to replace the ailing chief justice with a Thomas-like conservative, Honda would have lost, and a new avenue to sue corporations might have opened.

---

WSJ is a pay service but many news outlets picked up the story. Here is one. link

Nice analysis of the differences between religious/social conservatives and business conservatives.

Quote:

---

The democrats were focused on state rights

---

A conservative position today

Quote:

---

the federalists were about a stronger centrlal government

---

A liberal position today

yes, but everyone in america at that time could have been considered an extreme conservative.

The democrats believed in a loose interpretation of the constitution, liberal position today

federalist believed in a srict interpretation of the constitution, conservative belief today.

I say agian the originial polictical parties werent about conservative/liberal as they were all conservatives.

Quote:

---

yes, but everyone in america at that time could have been considered an extreme conservative.

---

Actually I believe they were considered quite liberal. At least those who favored the revolution. Remember yesterdays liberal is todays conservative. ~;)

Quote:

---

I say agian the originial polictical parties werent about conservative/liberal as they were all conservatives.

---

They were just as split as people are today no matter how you label them. Again I see the founding Fathers as the Liberals of their time. That is unless you call revolting against your King a conservative idea.

Quote:

---

Actually I believe they were considered quite liberal. At least those who favored the revolution. Remember yesterdays liberal is todays conservative. ~;)

---

Well then you just proved my point, as this whole side argument was about if jefferson was a liberal.

Quote:

---

They were just as split as people are today no matter how you label them. Again I see the founding Fathers as the Liberals of their time. That is unless you call revolting against your King a conservative idea.

---

sure they were split, but i really dont think that any one party was more conservative/liberal than the other.

Quote:

---

Well then you just proved my point, as this whole side argument was about if jefferson was a liberal.

---

Which do you think today represents Jeffersons views better? Conservatives or Libberals? I said they were liberal for their time and I also said yesterdays liberal is todays conservative.

Quote:

---

sure they were split, but i really dont think that any one party was more conservative/liberal than the other.

---

Im sure they were.

You guys are jerks for ignoring my interesting link while squabbling.

Quote:

---

You guys are jerks for ignoring my interesting link while squabbling.

---

Interesting to who? Look girl personal attacks are against forum rules ~D

I figured I could get away with one if I whispered it. My deepest apologies.

I'll throw in again. I will offer my apologies for the "motherfreakin liberal" comment. It was typed out of quasi-emotion, and if I have offended anyone, then I will take my lumps and lesson from the Mod.

Quote:

---

This is really the whole point as Divinus seems to want us to go by the constitution line by line.

---

That is mostly accurate.

My gripe is that Judges are really causing some very seious harm to this country. A "liberal" or loose interpretation of written documentation can leave it open-ended. By sticking as closely to the letter of the law as possible, we limit the opportunity for damage.

Liberal interpretation is not limited to Democrats. Republicans are guilty of this as well. A good example is the gross expansion of Federal powers under the commerce clause. I think Scalia erred in the recent findings of the Court on medicinal marijuana. For me, the marijuana was a non-issue. The issue was the power given to the federal government through the commerce clause. I know that this subject has already been discussed in another thread, so I will not continue. I use this as an example of where I think liberal interpretation can be a damaging mistake perpetrated by both sides of the aisle.

As for Dems and the GOP, I hate seeing the GOP go the way it is going right now. The GOP is becoming a bloated monster of itself and is losing its identity. We used to be about states rights, individual and economic freedom, and reduced federal involvement. It has morphed into a religion-driven overbearing micromanaging mother-in-law. I mean, gay marriage constitutional amendment? What the hell is that?

The essence of all political conflict is centered on one concept: those for democracy vs those for autocracy. The GOP is leaving its roots and inching owards autocracy, which is typically a Democrat position. We will stay out of your wallet, but we will jump in your bedroom.

I am afraid for this country. I just want judges who will strictly limit their interpretation of the constitution to what is written.

Divinus, that post was much better and you had some good points ~:cheers:

Gawain- the whole point is jefferson was for a loose interpretation which is a liberal view. Sure by our standards he would be a conservative, but back then he was a liberal. It is hard to say what he would be in modern day as he would have grown up in a completly different enviroment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

You guys are jerks for ignoring my interesting link while squabbling.

---

Right. I had read that and I don't really agree with it's saying.

Quote:

---

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist sided with a majority that flexed federal muscle to protect a big corporation.

---

Now, I don't know all the details of this case- but I don't think you should be able to sue over your car not having airbags and I don't think its 'flexing federal muscle to protect a big corporation' either. But again, I'm not familiar with the case or what it was determining.

Bump to refresh people's memory.

So what do you think about Roberts?
I just want Roe v. Wade to be overturned so that we can have something else and get futher from abortion on demand. This is my focus for this presidency and i am not ashamed of it. Roberts doesnt need to be an idealogue about it, he just needs to have the right verdict when it comes his way. This is our best shot at getting rid of the supreme court mandate and going back to the drawing boards regarding our abortion laws. Even if we get laws closer to some countries in Europe it will save thousands of lives every year. Il take what i can get.

this needs to occur sometime soon. our current laws are barbaric

Roe just allows for the possiblity of abortion, and that states cannot outlaw it altogether. It never said anything about allowing it through the full 9 months. That's all the decisions that have come since. If SCOTUS wants to rule the United States, and I would argue it's clear they do, they need to stop being halfway pregnant and do it right. Come out and say "THis is what we command, this is the common sense solution". This pretense of "how can we weasal what we want, even if it means 50 times more than what we want" has to end. Have the guts to rule, or shut up. Pretending you don't order the President & Congress around like [...] isn't cute, and it's not fooling anybody.

It is Roberts Brought to you via the NZ Herald

It's Official: Roberts.

I thought either Luttig or Roberts would get the nod.

This is a homerun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

It's Official: Roberts.

I thought either Luttig or Roberts would get the nod.

This is a homerun.

---

SCORE

this is my equivalent to sports

Excellent.

Sounds like a good pick. Here's to 'strictly applying the Constitution'. ~:thumb:

I bet his relative youth played no small role either- this guy is likely to be on the court for 25+ years.