Can someone repost the site where you can petition against him? Thank you.
Worth repeating. These racist elitists are DEMOCRATS, whatever they call themselves!
big time bttt...
We have Rules.
Priority 1: Remove Specter from Judiciary (Day 6)
Urgent! Committee Assignments are being made THIS WEEK! There are spots on the Judiciary Committee to be assigned. Tell Sen. Frist and Sen Kyl we need Conservative members on the Judiciary and NO Arlen Specter!
Specter's in line for Chairman, but it can be Challenged! It has happened in the past. Moderate Lugar challenged the Great Jesse Helms for Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. A Challenger will have to come forward with the GOP members of the Judicial Committee meet on November 17th! We need to find a member with the Courage to Challenge.
MacSpecter belongs on the bench with Jeffords....another Judas!
This is already in FR archives at least three or four times. You could have just "BUMP"ed one of them instead of posting yet another one.
Gotta love Ann, and yes Specter has to go, but she commits a common error that undermines our own argument.
She said "Reagan's radical notion was that judges don't write laws, they interpret them."
Emphatic McLaughlin "WRRRRROOOONG!!!" Judges aren't supposed to interpret laws, they're supposed to APPLY them. The difference is fundamental.
To interpret means that the judge is the one who has the final say as to what the law means. In contrast, to apply recognizes that the meaning of the law has already been established by the ones who wrote it, and the judge's only job is to apply that law in a particular situation in a particular case. That involves listening to witnesses, analyzing evidence, disallowing testimony, etc., to see if a violation of law has occurred. But under no circumstance is it the function of the judge to interpret the law in any way that deviates from the thinking of the lawmaker.
The critical concept here is original intent. If you take away a judge's option to re-interpret and force them to APPLY the law as intended by the legislators who passed them, the judge's personal feeling on the issue becomes irrelevant. In short, all of the problems we have had with activist judges goes away if we require them to apply with original intent, and absolutely FORBID reinterpretation. And I mean under penalty of impeachment.
It really sticks in my craw when people confuse this. It's similar to people, especially conservatives who should know better, saying we're a democracy when we're a republic. The founders DESPISED democracy and warned us it would be the death of freedom. But no less a threat is the confusion of interpretation vs. application. Let's firmly but respectfully :-) correct our ideological brethren when they make that easy but dangerous mistake.