[Jim Robinson]

Wrong. We should keep the Marxists/socialists/liberals out of office. If we want smaller government, our first job is to elect people who will appoint constitutionalists to the bench. We must remove the liberal activist judges who make it possible for the liberals to advance their evil unconstitutional causes. Libertarian leaning voters should vote to keep or expand the current majority in congress to block the liberals. The president is doing a superb job with his judicial nominations and despite the obstructionist attempts by the liberal minority, we are getting most of them through the senate. It would be a horrible mistake to put these obstructionists in total control.

[NCSteve]

We should keep the Marxists/socialists/liberals out of office.

But we aren't doing that, Jim. The last six years have seen us slide toward socialism at a rate unheard-of before. Yes, there are still a few good Republican conservatives, but they are very few and they have no voice. The Republicans have discovered they too can vote themselves wealth and they are going at it full throttle.

The gains on the bench are too few and too far between, and we have seen that it practically takes open revolt to get those in office to pay attention enough to actually nominate real originalists. By the time we fill the bench with originalists, there will be nothing left of the Constitution to defend. Meanwhile we'll have roads and bridges to nowhere, nationalized health care, and redistributionism everywhere we look.

[billbears]

We should keep the Marxists/socialists/liberals out of office

As these can be found on either side of the aisle (although I don't know about 'Marxists' as that particular ideology doesn't exist for the most part), how would you suggest we do that? If one votes for the most conservative candidate, be it Democrat or Republican, that may or may not enable a party, depending on if it reaches majority status, to foward its agenda. The Framers intended that we elect candidates to office that would represent our locality's or state's views. If the most conservative candidate happens to be Democrat, by the Framers intent, I should vote for that candidate because he represents my views, not what one party or the other will do based on the count in Congress. Note, this has happened in NC politics in my lifetime. By your argument however, I should desire to vote for the liberal candidate because he has the right letter by his name on the hopes that the national party will get its agenda through.

Now let's say that overall agenda does not limit government but expands it (i.e. NCLB, Medicare Act, healthcare, faith-based initiatives (here I may agree with the principal but it is still an expansion of government)). Am I to continue to vote for that party even knowing the leadership will not listen to its constituency? On the possible hope that one day they may?

If we want smaller government, our first job is to elect people who will appoint constitutionalists to the bench

A Constitutionalist is not someone that gainsays the national government's positions if the 'right' party is in charge. A Constitutionalist would be willing to stand up even to the party that nominated them. Something that can't be said necessarily about the majority of all judges, be they Republican or Democrat.

We must remove the liberal activist judges who make it possible for the liberals to advance their evil unconstitutional causes.

But yet I have seen cheering on this very board when conservative activist judges stick their noses into issues that are none of the federal government's concern. It seems Republicans don't want Constitutionalists, they want activist judges who agree with their views. Don't take this wrong, but that is no better than a liberal activist judge. Justice Thomas, for the most part, is a Constitutionalist. Janice Rogers Brown is as well. Justice Scalia is not (i.e. the Raich decision) Thomas' dissent stated

If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything," including "quilting bees, clothes drives and potluck suppers." Thus "the federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."

If we elect 'Constitutionalists' that refuse to recognize the federalist system that was intended to be in place, how is that different from having a liberal judge in charge? 'Our' views are nationwide instead of 'theirs'? That's better how? It still destroys the limitation of the federal government upon the states. Although I haven't seen everything on these last two Justices nominated to SCOTUS, as Bush nominated them, I have a feeling they're going to lean towards Scalia rather than Thomas.

Libertarian leaning voters should vote to keep or expand the current majority in congress to block the liberals.

'Win back the Senate'? 'Keep the House'? No offense but at the rate they are passing spending bills, I don't seriously think Democrats could do much worse. In fact, the nation's budget on a whole historically usually grows at a lesser rate when opposing parties occupy the two main branches of government.

Just my two cents...

[Lurker]

"our first job is to elect people who will appoint constitutionalists to the bench."

Let me know when you find one.

L

[Smokin' Joe]

Libertarian leaning voters should vote to keep or expand the current majority in congress to block the liberals.

That is the issue in a nutshell. And the best reason to go to the polls in November.

[Reaganghost]

"The president is doing a superb job with his judicial nominations.."

How quickly we forget the attempted Harriet Meirs appointment. He withdrew the nomination only when he recognized his nominee would fail at the hands of conservatives in his own party.