A Boston Tea Party …(Trifecta)
Two down one to go. The confirmation hearings of Samuel Alito are now underway. His hearings will shine a bright light on the difference between activists and constitutionalists. Alito’s confirmation will be the second justice nominated by President Bush to sit on the Supreme Court. I want a third.
One more current Justice should retire. One more constitutionalist is needed to lock down the future direction of this country. One more nominee of President Bush is what is needed to permanently take this country back to where it should be. Should I be happy with two new justices? No, I want it all. It would be marvelous to rub the faces of Kennedy and Schumer in the dirt, step on them when they are down so to speak.
Listening to Kennedy and Schumer speak is like vomiting. One only hopes you don’t have to do it to often. Only in judicial confirmation hearings can one speak in a manner that borders on slander. Both men speak about wanting a Justice who will not place their personal feelings into their rulings. Strangely (joking), neither man had or have a problem when liberal Justices over the past 30 years instilled their beliefs. It was Thurgood Marshall who said, “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up”. The truth is these extreme liberals are only concerned if a conservative places their personal beliefs in their rulings.
A constitutionalist like Alito will not put his personal attitude in his rulings. He will rule in a manner that strictly interprets our constitution. The way all previous Justices should have in the past. His confirmation will help to stop the leftward movement we have seen. A third Justice confirmation would put in cement things like gay marriages, abortion on demand, and eminent domain. So lets hope we get one more. I want the trifecta, three new Justices sitting on the court. You think this nomination will be ugly, imagine the next one. A third nominee will put the left over the edge, just where Kennedy and Schumer belong.
posted by schumacher @ 8:33 AM
6 comments
6 Comments:
I am a Law Student at UND Law that reads your blog for entertainment value. But, I really have to respond to this post. Let me ask you this question, do you even know the difference between an activist and a "constitutionlist" judge? How many actual opinions have you read? I have read hundreds. An "activist" judge is one who overrules statutes past by the federal government and the ones who have actually done that the most are Thomas, Rhenquist, and Scalia, they have stripped the federal governments power to police the states in many respects (watch the committee hearings closely the opening statements were littlered with pissed off statements from both Dems and Repubs about how the Supreme Court stripped the American's with Disabilities Act.). That is judicial activism. The words "judicial activism" to mean right wing wackos means any decision they don't agree with. That isn't activism, that is being a sore loser. Sometimes you lose infront of the court. Life sucks, get over it. "strict constuctionism" is the reason why the courts decined to get involved in the Schiavo case. The Florida Statute at issue provided that without a living will, life support would be terminated if there is clear and convincing evidence the person on life support wanted to die. According to Judge Greer, that standard was met. Courts are restrained and cannot overrule a lower judges opinion unless there is an abuse of discression. That is "constitutionalism", adhering to the laws passed by the people.
Dear Mr. Law Student,
I know this is a blog sight and email and the great information age is here, but perhaps you should consider basics such as spelling and language, before you jump into law. A statute or law is passed not "past". The fact that the World Wide Web is in existence does and should not give way to just anyone claiming they are someone, when indeed they might be just some schmuck who does not necessarily know his or her head from his or her ass. You are entitled to your opionion though. Have a nice day.
M
OH, I made a typo. I am sorry. You really didn't counter anything I just said. Since you want to call me names and challenge my credentials, I will prove to you I am a law student. Do you know what the Rule Against Perpetuities is? How about the elements of Negligence? Or the elements of the Lemon test, the test for seeing if a particular statute meets constitutional muster under the Establishment Clause? How about the Chevron case which is the Supreme Courts guide to evaluating whether or not a rule passed by an administrative body is consistent with a statute that creates that administrative body? Still care to challenge my credentials? Oh, I forgot, all you got on me is a typo
Actually I only pointed out the one, as there were others, just did not want to hurt your arrogant feelings. I know a handful of good attorneys, otherwise they are scum just like the politicians who at some point probably were in the law field. I have a law dictionary and can throw a few terms and maybe even a few cases around also, but that does not make me anything special. Just having a little fun, and hopefully you get through ok and become a real fine attorney. I may need your services one day,and then and maybe then I could have you represent me in front of some "activist judge".
M
M,
While we're on the topic of typos, I think you mean "This is a blog site."
Jim
Good job Jim, I left that out there for bait, and ding ding, you are the winner. If you are not the law student, perhaps you should look into the profession. If you are the law student, hope is still alive. See how blog sights, ha ha get people to just go off on all sorts of things. This is a great site, and hopefully it will be read more and more.
Have a great day!!!!!!!!!!!!!
M
Post a Comment
<< Home