fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Joeychgo said:
Joey, I want you to consider this: I have never called for a 'Republican' or 'Democrat' for the judiciary. What I want is a Conservative Constructionist Originalist who will interpret the Constitution, not just make new law. What I do oppose on the bench is a liberal, like Ruth Ginsberg, who actively supports abortion, legalized prostitution, polygamy, and lowering the age of consensual sex for females, and loss of property rights, among other things. These are the issues that divide the country.
The fact is that several justices nominated by Republican Presidents have turned out to be liberal, which disappoints Conservatives. We aren't happy about it. Yes, they were errors. But that is why we want to be so very clear and careful about the background of every judge we the people select through our president. If he messes up, we yell at him, and apparently, he listens.
Okay, let's put all this Republican vs. Democrat judge crap to rest, all of you. What we Conservatives want on the bench is someone who will strictly interpret the Constitution according to the intent of the founders. Well, you ask, how can you know the original intent of the founders since they're all dead? I'm glad you asked. The answer is that we can't, except for the ACTUAL WORDS THAT THEY PENNED DOWN ON PAPER. That is known as the Constitution.
How do you define an activist judge? I would define him/her as someone who reads something into the Constitution that isn't actually there, such as abortion rights. (There is absolutely no mention of abortion rights in the Constitution, yet in 1973 seven unelected judges decided to re-write the Constitution, despite the opposition of over half of Americans.)
Activist judges believe that the Constitution is a so-called 'living document', and can be interpreted broadly and changed as needed. The problem with this is that the Government's Checks and Balances have been upset, because the only proper way to change the Constitution is supposed to be by passing an amendment. You might say, But that's too hard! Well, it's supposed to be hard. Any amendment is supposed to be ratified by 2/3 of the states of this country, which would show a true consensus of the majority of the people.
You see, we are supposed to be a self-governed people. But when only five out of nine people in black robes can make law, we fall dangerously into a (yep, now's the time to use this word) quagmire called elitist rule, where we have lost our governing ability.
So many times I have seen activist judges overturn a law that has been passed by the will of the people without there being any actual Constitutional reference to that law. Activist judges rule based upon their personal policy preferences, as in the case of Justice Stevens, who has publicly stated that we should use European law to help us interpret (re-write) the Constitution.
What we Conservatives believe is that a Justice should be concerned with interpreting the Constitution as it applies to the law, and only rule and opine based upon what the Constitution says.
The problem with a so-called 'moderate' judge is that he/she cannot be depended upon to rule in a consistent manner with regard to the Constitution. The very definition of a 'moderate' implies that they will straddle the fence. That could mean ruling at times based upon personal preference instead of the written law. But in reality, moderate judges tend to vote liberal on the most controversial issues, and that has dire consequences for the country. See the Kelo case, among others, which shows new law being made that actually takes away our freedoms.
Justices like Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, and Alito have shown a rock-solid consistency in ruling based upon the written law. It just so happens that their personal preference is to do so. They are reviled by the left for being extreme, but if you read their opinions (and I have), you will see that they carefully consider how the law applies before ruling.
Pay attention to the press in the next few weeks. The CODE-WORD will be "out of the mainstream", and it will be bandied about by the Democrats AND the Media when referring to Alito. But consider that Justice Ginsburg is as far out of the mainstream to the left as you can go, yet nobody even MENTIONED that when she was nominated. Also keep in mind that Alito has been nominated to two Federal benches, with votes of one hundred to zero in the United States Senate both times. That means Ted Kennedy and others voted to confirm him. Watch how they all of a sudden have a problem with him.
I know you probably don't agree with Conservatives in general, but I hope this at least explains our view. Not a single one of these words was copy-pasted from anywhere else. These are my own thoughts.
