|
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||
|
It is obvious, and reasonable, that what is not needed is the appointment of judges of the ilk of Roberts and Alito. The all too commonly heard "Founders' views" and so-called constructionism are rhetorical devices with little meaning other than which is consistent with current neo-con or "right" beliefs. Yes, we know. Liberals prefer judges that legislate from the bench. Judges who try to take away rights that are spelled out in the constitution while adding one that aren't even vaguely mentioned. You would much prefer a judge that doesn't have to be held accountable to anyone for his decisions to do the dirty work that those who have to face reelection just can't seem to get done. Like Alito, Scalia and Roberts do not? Oh please! No, they attempt to go by the letter of the constitution, not make it up as they go like the other justices. You never read a decision written by Scalia, have you? Alito, Scalia and Roberts are strict constructionists. That is what all the hubbub was about at the confirmation hearings. The debate between the right and left has always been about what kind of judges to appoint. Constitutional constructionists or liberal bench legislators. I am pretty sure that the left isn't running from the label. The left believes that judges should legislate. Especially when they can't get Congress to pass the legislation they want. This of course is a balance of power issue and is exactly the type of situation the founders were attempting to avoid. They had seen how the court had run rough shod over the Parliament in their former countries and they wanted t... |
View the Top Clips from May 7, 2008
|
|
