Posted on 11/02/2005 11:37:19 AM PST by RWR8189
Yes..ha.ha.ha.ha.ha.Yes.Yeeesss....Yeeeeeesssssssssss!!!!!!!
Yeah we're activists.....actively seeking to ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTION IN IT'S ORIGINAL INTENT!!!!
Well, he certainly seems to have a lot going for him. I am glad to see Conservatives finally rally behind a candidate.
I am not as big on comparing a candidate to any sitting justices.... I try to evaluate each on their own.
That's me, though.
Well, if Alito is like Scalia, but without the tendency to wuss out and resort to judicial activism when the Constitution leads to a result he dislikes, then Bush did OK this time.
God, some days I wish I could believe liberals. :^D
Your seventh grade civics class sucked.
The purpose of the Supreme Court is to reconcile differences between competing sectors of government, such as two states, or a state and the federal government, or when Congress has passed conflicting laws.
Given that, it is entirely sensible for the Court to establish that a given congressional statute (lower law) is in inadverdent conflict with a higher law (the constitution) and rule that the higher law takes precedence. The first check against Congress passing unconstitutional law is Congress itself. After that, the President can veto ("I refuse") a law, which he believes in unconstitutional. It is gravely unfortunate that the Presidential veto has become a means of the President wielding legislative power, rather than executive power. Congress can, however, disagree with the President and override his veto, and I don't believe it was not unheard of for Senators to override a veto of a bill they hadn't liked because they believed the president was wrong to legislate by vetoing it.
It is far more questionnable (and in my mind, quite unlikely) that the founding fathers intended for the Court to have the authority to override an interpretation of Congress and the President that a given law is unconstitutional. And it is absolutely abominable for the president to sign a law which he believes is likely unconstitutional in the expectation that the Supreme Court will strike it down for him.
:^D
"...individual rights (including a woman's decision whether to bear a child)."
Sorry, bud...a pregnant woman ALREADY bears a child, they just want to givw her the right to murder the baby she is already carrying.
Ed
That's not the way it should work though. If the right can do it, why can't the left?
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.