'Disrobed': How Conservatives Can Take Back the Courts

Human Events Online ^ | Jun 22, 2006 | Lisa De Pasquale

[Valpal1]

This means only nominating and seating “Judicial Reagans” to the bench, employing principled, conservative judicial activism, and working to destroy liberalism through strategic litigation.

Lawyers, bleah! How about we just get rid of activist judges and appoint persons who will defend the constitution instead of legislating from the bench?

How about apponting non-lawyers to the bench? It's not a requirement that they be lawyers. I would prefer plumbers, electricians and mechanics on the bench any day over another freaking lawyer.

[ozoneliar]

Also, I would love to see a conservative activist judge take over a failing school district and impose a school voucher program

Anybody else have a problem with this statement?

[DBeers]

Homosexual Agenda Ping!

If you oppose the homosexualization of society
-add yourself to the ping list!

To be included in or removed from the
HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA PING LIST,
please FReepMail either DBeers or DirtyHarryY2k.

Free Republic homosexual agenda keyword search [ Add keyword = homosexualagenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

[AmericaUnited]

I would prefer plumbers, electricians and mechanics on the bench any day over another freaking lawyer.

That's a cute "sound bite" but the truth is the "real lawyers" would eat their lunch every single day. There are still plenty of very well qualified judges to pick from like Roberts and Alito.

[Jim Robinson]

Woo hoo!! Advocating war against liberal activism using their own tools! Let loose the dawgs of wahr!!

[OriginalIntent]

Valpall makes a very good point however.

I would prefer plumbers, electricians and mechanics on the bench any day over another freaking lawyer

The damage was done by real lawyers who ignored real law and instead put their personal "feelings" into their opinions.

A plumber can legislate from the bench just as well as any real lawyer such as Douglas, Brennan, Blackmun, Thurgood Marshall, Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens, Earl Warren, and the rest of the legal positivists.

The point is that it doesn't take a real lawyer if the activist decisions being given by real lawyers are made upon personal whims instead of intent of the Constitution.

[DBeers]

Woo hoo!! Advocating war against liberal activism using their own tools! Let loose the dawgs of wahr!!

Yes!

:-)

[Defender2]

Please see and please see post #47 by me on that thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1659824/posts

[shield]

All activist judges NEED TO BE IMPEACHED...simple as that...congress needs to do their jobs.

[ModelBreaker]

How about apponting non-lawyers to the bench?

Earl Warren was not an attorney. It is better to have someone who knows what they are doing to lead a revolution.

[gaspar]

Some of these judges are so old they have to tie a sponge under their jaw to catch the drool.

[MplsSteve]

Earl Warren was, in fact, an attorney.

He graduated from UC-Berkeley's law school in 1914 and then practiced law 'til he was appointed Alameda County Attorney in 1925.

[HoosierHawk]

Also, I would love to see a conservative activist judge take over a failing school district and impose a school voucher program

Anybody else have a problem with this statement?

Sure. There's no such thing as a "conservative, activist judge."

Unless he actively pursues to uphold the Constitution as written. But then, of course, he's a radical, right-winger.

[maxwellp]

I would accept anyone who has good old American common sense.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

How has the left taken advantage of the right’s view of the courts?

The left walks all over us in the courts because we don’t play to win. We need to embrace Ronald Reagan’s strategy in the Cold War and apply it to the courts: “We win. They lose.” The left manipulates the courts to enact its left-wing agenda because they know that they could never win in the legislature. Conversely, conservatives demand that judges apply the “rule of law”—which would be great, except that the only laws that exist for judges to apply are those that have been infected by 50 years of liberal judicial activism.

Bork called it "judicial ratcheting". Stare decisis is the ratcheting mechanism employed against conservatives.

It only works against conservatives patsies.

..how about we win they lose? ..a fighter and non patsie.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

That is: It only works against conservative patsies.

[rmlew]

Great Book.

[LibertarianInExile]

"Also, I would love to see a conservative activist judge take over a failing school district and impose a school voucher program..."

Amen to that. This is no conservative writing this book, if he believes that. I also have a problem with this statement:

"That’s what we need more of—conservative justices considering the social and political consequences of their decisions in the nation’s most important politically charged legal cases."

In a conservative justice's opinion, there are no statistics.
There is no sociological data analysis.
There is no discussion of law review articles or citation to foreign law before 1776.
There is no review of the world's position, or the fifty States' positions, on any federal law.

There is the Constitution, and the intent of the Founders, and THAT IS IT.

Scalia and this guy should be ashamed for even mentioning it. The law is the law. It is black and white, in writing, immutable. It means what it says. If the legislature doesn't like the consequences of the laws they have passed, they should change them.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

How about apponting non-lawyers to the bench? It's not a requirement that they be lawyers. I would prefer plumbers, electricians and mechanics on the bench any day over another freaking lawyer.

Here's a little historical footnote: on the day that Reagan announced the appointment of Sandra Day O'Connor, The Wall Street Journal carried a Letter to the Editor which argued that there should be an economist on the Supreme Court.

I immediately thought, ". . . and I know just the person for that role - Thomas Sowell!"And then I looked at the byline of the letter. It was written by Thomas Sowell!!

Just think if Reagan had done that instead of naming Sandra Liberal O'Connor!