Posted on 02/07/2006 9:14:03 PM PST by LdSentinal
Odd; I thought "Liberal" judges would seek to expand the law by twisting the Constitution to conform to thier agenda, and "Conservative" judges would seek to contain the law within the strict limits of the Constitution.
An example would be "hate-speech crimes", where Liberals would limit freedom, by placing restrictions on the First Amendment; while Conservatives would expand (or maintain) freedom by insisting that "Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech,..." means EXACTLY that.
What is it that they say about "garbage in, garbage out"? The entire premise of this bogus study is faulty. They may have a useful definition of "Liberal judges", but true "Conservative judges" would not be ruling based on desired outcomes, but rather would be ruling based on the facts and the law.
In other news, blogger journalists tend to be much more conservative than the Media Insdustry that is 90% liberal.
Can't believe they wasted time and energy on this study.
No, Austin is. But Houston tries hard.
The data on trial court decisions were taken from a database consisting of more than 75,0000 opinions published in the Federal Supplement by almost 1,800 judges from 1933 through the fall of 2005.
I guess the comparers didn't bother with the justices from the first 150 years of our country.
Funny how often these studies find what they're looking for!
Apparently if you want to see their "empirical data", methodology, models etc. you have to get their book. Not only pay for it but pay for it at college bookstore prices.
No thanks.
The age of progression in regards to legal zeniths attained is 1963-64 for racial civil rights, 1973 for Abortion, 1979(?) for Title IX and 1991(?) for Americans With Disabilities Act. At each of these points a major precedent was set. After each act constant refinements are the order of the day mostly from the left and to a lesser degree from the right. Again I would like to see this guy's data, models to make my own judgement but it is clear to me that he views the left's attempt to "supersize" each act as if every legal petition from leftist petitioners is a bonafide, unassailable action. This is one of the main reasons more recent judgements by Bush-43-appointed judges are viewed by the left as more conservative. It's a constant beat-back.
Also notice how the progression by Dem President-appointed judges are viewed by this guy as having become more liberal in their judicial decisions. Again this is a natural reality that has clearly been on view recently in regards to the war on terror, abortion, gay/transsexual rights, Pledge of Allegiance yada yada yada.
WHAT??? More conservative than Souter? How could that possibly be?
or it may have been personal, at that point it is hard for almost all of us to actually know what we do (any FR posters who are from death are VERY welcome to give perspective on this! How one thinks when the facts are at hand is a big deal to almost anyone's imagination.)
This, after all, part of the reasons Americans elected W.
In short, Pres. bush did pretty much what candidate Bush promised to do.
Good!
I like it, I love it, I want more of it.
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.