Posted on 04/26/2006 6:25:27 AM PDT by Nextrush
I don't think that's what he's claiming. Rather, he's claiming that some of his critics, like Phyllis Schlafly, are advocating the politicization of the courts. Suggesting that judges make decisions in accordance with the desires of constituency of the politicians who appoint them seems like a textbook case of court politicization.
If anyone thinks that's not how it works, and has for at least 225 years, please let me know what country they live in because it's not the USA. The courts here have been politicized since the begining
Not that I like any of these justices (I think they're scum), but if you think they ruled in accordance with the way their backers wanted them to rule, you're deluding yourself.
Come to think of it, Scalia has ruled against conservatives on numerous occaisions, like flag burning and giving Gitmo detainees a hearing.
It's rare that judges appointed by leftist presidents rule against the left, though. Funny, isn't it?
It's so rare that I can find a judge for whom I have even a shred of respect that, if put under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, I could not refer to the judge as "Your Honor" and abide by my vow. That reminds me,
Q. What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 50?
A. "Your Honor"
Trinity Lutheran Church in Pottsville
Oh great, another ELCA screw up
Define a "personal" faith.
One that never gets beyond the church pew??
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.