I read the opinions.
I do not base my opinions on what people say; I base them on what I read.
The conditions, as they were, were met.
Place the blame where the blame belongs; with the people who wrote a vague law.
Beauseant!
Posted on 07/10/2005 7:19:51 AM PDT by colonel mosby
I know.
Hell, just give the pick to Arlen.
He can't do worse than Gonzales.
Hopefully you're younger than me Steve. You may live to see a conservative party. ;-)
I disagree Sparky.
I say they broke up a logjam (that GWB was just setting on with his finger up his butt) and got us three damned good nominees.
I'd like to see your quote from Owens' opinion in that case which showed that her dissent was based on how she "felt".
The fact is, it was the majority who added language to the statute that wasn't there. The statute required that the lower court grant the waiver if it finds that the girl has met certain conditions. It did not require the court to grant the waiver if it fails to specifically state that she has not met these conditions. And as Owens stated in her dissent, it goes against judicial precedent to second-guess factual findings of lower courts unless those findings are irreconcilable with the data set forth in the record.
Remember: The mere fact that a judge says that he's engaging in strict constructionism, and accuses his dissenting colleagues of judicial activism, doesn't mean that that's an accurate portrayal of what happened.
FWIW, Reagan didn't appoint Souter, Pres. Bush (the Elder) did...
I read the opinions.
I do not base my opinions on what people say; I base them on what I read.
The conditions, as they were, were met.
Place the blame where the blame belongs; with the people who wrote a vague law.
Beauseant!
Look, my fellow Rep, I am not just "babbling". this is my line of work - I study this stuff every day. There is MUCH more in the legal world than abortion, the Ten Commandments and takings. How about the entire world of criminal law and proceedure? This has been a very conservative court. There are many more examples - but it is late. Let's not fight among ourselves.
Agree completely.
Not kicking ass - no. This has been a conservative court. Conservatives believe in precedent, and this court inherited liberal gobs of it. Criminal law and proceedure, especially search and seizure, have been completely reformed - AND THIS HAS BEEN AN EVERY DAY BIG DEAL.
If Bush appoints every conservative YOU want, Roe will be limited, but not overruled.
Have you ever read Roe? It's as bad as you think.
Given Gonzales views on not only abortion, but affirmative action, why in the world would you believe he is an originalist in the Scalia-mode. Why in the world shouldn't Bush and 55 Republicans in the Senate be expected to deliver a Scalia-like originalist when that is what Bush promised and what most were elected to do?
Not kicking ass - no. This has been a conservative court. Conservatives believe in precedent, and this court inherited liberal gobs of it. Criminal law and proceedure, especially search and seizure, have been completely reformed - AND THIS HAS BEEN AN EVERY DAY BIG DEAL.
If Bush appoints every conservative YOU want, Roe will be limited, but not overruled.
Have you ever read Roe? It's as bad as you think.
Agree completely.
Look, my fellow Rep, I am not just "babbling". this is my line of work - I study this stuff every day. There is MUCH more in the legal world than abortion, the Ten Commandments and takings. How about the entire world of criminal law and proceedure? This has been a very conservative court. There are many more examples - but it is late. Let's not fight among ourselves.
I'll just speak for myself and say I don't ever want anyone to be able to say that I was part of the problem.
No, all that happened was that SCOTEX noted that the lower court had failed to specifically state that the conditions hadn't been met, and that therefore they should proceed as if the conditions had been met. That's adds language to the law that wasn't there, and it goes against established precedent for dealing with findings of fact from lower courts.
I don't know what your definition of "conservative" is, but most conservatives I know don't believe in blindly preserving every demented aspect of the status quo that liberals have foisted on us.
The 'Rats & the media are trying to sell us a new definition of judicial conservatism. Under this new paradigm, a judge who hands down leftist rulings is a "moderate" and a judge who agrees to uphold those leftist rulings, since they become a "precedent" once handed down, is a "conservative". A judge who actually abides by the Constitution is an "extremist" whose appointment constitutes "extraordinary circumstances" and obligates the Democrats to filibuster, lest someone "outside the judicial mainstream" be confirmed. The "mainstream", you see, is composed only of judges who create new liberal precedents ("moderates") or uphold those precedents once created ("mainstream conservatives").
Thus saith Katie Couric and Ted Kennedy!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.