Skip to comments.
Why the Battle for the Court Will Be Nasty
City Journal ^
| Summer 2002
| Brian C. Anderson
Posted on 07/09/2002 11:26:27 PM PDT by Pokey78
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
1
posted on
07/09/2002 11:26:27 PM PDT
by
Pokey78
To: summer; JohnHuang2; Sabertooth; MeeknMing
Ping.
2
posted on
07/09/2002 11:27:14 PM PDT
by
Pokey78
To: *SCOTUS_List
.
Comment #4 Removed by Moderator
To: ChristAlmighty
Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(
no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality...
UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH!
To: Congressman Billybob
fyi
To: Pokey78
Bump - excellent article - one worth bookmarking.
I had not realized the extent to which the Court had gone off the deep end.
To: Pokey78
Thanks. That's a keeper.
Comment #9 Removed by Moderator
To: Pokey78
Thanks for the post and the ping, Pokey!
Free the da$$hole 50 and release Bush's judicial appointments NOW, Leahy!:
What the liberals fear is a conservative judicial philosophy called originalism, which holds that judges must base their rulings on the Constitutions text and structure, as the Framers understood it, and they must interpret statutes to mean what they say. Very different from the activist and creative jurisprudence that has prevailed for the last half-century, this approach, which was the Framers accepted view of judging, would never have permitted the Courts expansive policymaking role that produced some of the Lefts most cherished victories. An originalist Court could even overturn some of those victories as unanchored in the Constitution. Regardless of your view of the specific policies at issue, it is vital to Americas future that Bush win this battle for the courts: the Supreme Courts politicized role in recent decades is corroding the self-government at the heart of American constitutionalism. In a democracy, voters, not unelected judges, decide the momentous questions. When the Supreme Court forces its policy preferences on the American people without the clear warrant of a constitutional text, as has happened often in the last 50 years, it is acting more as an anti-democratic Caesar than as the impartial referee its supposed to be, in Justice Scalias view. Moreover, by politicizing constitutional law, the Court has weakened the rule of law that is the bedrock of our constitutional form of government. As Justice Thomas notes, if law is just politics, then there are no courts at all, only legislatures, and no Constitution or law at all, only opinion polls. Why then would you need unelected judges to perform the same function as an elected congress?
To: Pokey78
Great article.
To: Pokey78
Great post!
12
posted on
07/10/2002 8:20:10 AM PDT
by
bvw
To: bvw
Bump for a terrific article.
13
posted on
07/10/2002 8:56:45 AM PDT
by
Leto
To: TonyRo76
Great post. A fun scenario is that one ultra lib dies, like Ginsberg, and Bush can't get through a replacement. So the court runs with 8 for a while. Then another dies, and the court runs with 7 for a while. That could be interesting. Of course it could go the other way too. Scary.
This will be Bush's greatest test and possible largest achievement. If he could put a solid pro-constitution majority on the bench there might be some hope of recovering our Republic. If he bows down to the RINOs, Dems and assorted useful idiots and appoints liberals (like his Dad did on occassion) it will be a huge wasted opportunity and perhaps a "final point of no return" for Constitutional rule in the USA. The stakes are high on both sides, so a battle is assured. This is why the Senate is the critical battle this November.
To: Pokey78
Bump! Thanks for posting a great article.
To: Pokey78; BOBTHENAILER
Whew...long article!...I certainly don't agree with every single point the author makes...but overall it's a good piece.
...it is vital to Americas future that Bush win this battle for the courts: the Supreme Courts politicized role in recent decades is corroding the self-government at the heart of American constitutionalism.
Indeed.
There are few things that are more important for our republic, long-term.
EV
Comment #17 Removed by Moderator
To: Libertarianize the GOP
bttt
To: Free the USA
BTTT
To: TruthNtegrity
bump
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson