May 29, 2005
What The Court Fight Is All About
Columnist John Leo provides one of the most insightful explanations of what is at stake in the current battle for the courts. I've tried to say this many times, and wish that I had put it as well.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
Democrats try to frame their case by saying that Republicans are attacking the independence of the judiciary. Not true. They are attacking the process by which the policy preferences of the left are removed from the democratic process and written into the Constitution. The current moment may be the one historic opportunity that the Republicans will have to halt and reverse this severe damage to the courts. If they blow this chance out of timidity or bipartisan niceness, many of us will conclude that the GOP is not really a serious party entitled to our support.
The GOP is trying to save the judiciary -- really the entire American system. Will they have the intestinal fortitude to do it?
Posted by: Greg at
08:44 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.
1
How dare you twist the article around by not quoting every letter of it. Oh well, I guess it's just another case of an attack by The Dishonest And Intellectually Deficient Right.
Posted by: dolphin at Sun May 29 23:10:27 2005 (V5cZa)
2
The vast majority of federal judges were appointed by GOP politicians. The GOP isn't trying to "save" the judiciary. They are trying to replace their own judges with new judges who will forgo the Constitution in order to pursue a GOP agenda. Priscella Owens proves this point better (or at least as well as) than any other.
Posted by: dolphin at Mon May 30 04:41:46 2005 (2h6qI)
3
Strict constructionism is the opposite of what you describe Dolphin. They are reading it as it is stated and believe the Constitution was written to limit government.
Democrats tend to be loose constructionists, read it as they think it was *meant*, and believe that the Constitution was written to empower government.
Sorry, but the document is on our side.
Sub
Democrats tend to be loose constructionists, read it as they think it was *meant*, and believe that the Constitution was written to empower government.
Sorry, but the document is on our side.
Sub
Posted by: Subjugator at Wed Jun 1 08:41:05 2005 (lkCzp)
4
Having actuallt been here in Texas where I have observed Owen for years, I can tell you that she follows the Constitution as written -- and statutes as well. I've disagreed with her interpretation at times, but that does not mean she is trying to substitutes something other than the Constitution in its place. Often times the issue of judicial review of laws and statutory/constitutional interpretation comes down to where the lines get drawn. It isn't activism until the decisions become unmoored from that which was intended by the authors/framers of the Constitution or a statute, and something else gets substituted in place of those intentions.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Jun 1 09:48:44 2005 (BP2Eg)
7kb generated in CPU 0.0042, elapsed 0.0119 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.009 seconds, 33 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
21 queries taking 0.009 seconds, 33 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.