Originally posted by WulebgrIf being a judge is your sole criterion, you must regret the appointment of Earl Warren as Chief Justice. (He was Governor of California at the time he was nominated, and had never served as a judge.) Can you tell us how, in your opinion, the Warren Court was harmful to the law?
I know she has never served as a judge. That is all I need to know. That's my criteria... I can produce reams of evidence that justices without experience are harmful to the law.
EDIT: I had missed your answer to this question ... just read it.
Originally posted by newdad27What exactly constitutes activism on the bench? I have yet to hear a good answer to this question.
i just dont think we knew enough about her to consider her unqualified, unless of course you will just consider anyone Bush nominates unqualified. She does not have to of been a judge to be able to interpret law. And I would rather have a thomas than some activist loon judge like you find on the 9th circuit court of appeals in san francisco.
Originally posted by WulebgrDamn straight. Willy O. graduated from my college. Here was a real party animal back in the day. Guess he straighted up in law school.
Oh fecal emissions! You picked one of my heros, and a local boy to boot, to throw at my litmus test. I guess I better hobble down to the chemistry supply shop and ask for a different brand.
No wonder you're No1.
Originally posted by bbarrActivism on the bench is when you overturn prejudicial laws and offer freedoms to a broader class of Americans.
What exactly constitutes activism on the bench? I have yet to hear a good answer to this question.
This should be contrasted to strict constructionist where you take rights away from a broad class of Americans. Basically, a strict constructionist believes that rich Americans in the 1700's could see into the future.
Originally posted by telerionI don't think that last sentence is fair to rich Americans in the 1700's. If I were to rephrase it I would say that a strict constructionist pretends to believe the rich Americans in the 1700's intended that their view of what were human rights be the absolute maximum ever allowed.
Activism on the bench is when you overturn prejudicial laws and offer freedoms to a broader class of Americans.
This should be contrasted to strict constructionist where you take rights away from a broad class of Americans. Basically, a strict constructionist believes that rich Americans in the 1700's could see into the future.
The term "activism" is used to complain about interpretations of eighteenth century documents that keep them functioning in the twenty-first century. It is opposed by those who call themselves "strict constructionists," which means they decide every case in terms of the intent of Thomas Jefferson, a slave owner, and James Madison, and some of their friends--they are called the Framers, and are considered sacred figures. In recent years, the Rehnquist Court found new powers for states in their interpretations of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, revealing that judicial activism has become a conservative ideology, while formerly it was a liberal ideology
Now the good news has become bad news, supporting the fears some have expressed that Miers was sent up as a ruse to prepare the way for Samuel Alito. Nevertheless, the good news here emerges in the Democrats' sudden will to fight. Too bad they didn't have that will to fight fifteen years ago when George Sr. put on the Circuit Court.
